Collusion

[Pookie]

You hate gays, too.

No further evidence needed.

Oink.

You squeal like a pig so well.

I dislike you and your bosom buddy, Ken. You thought he was a cute slender coed. He had you jumping through all kinds of hoops to please him because of that. There's no hate of gays in what I said. Just pointing out your shame at getting caught doing what you did. Especially assisting Ken in using pictures of a poster's kids in AVs. I don't even accuse you of abandoning your standards and morals, because you never had any.

You're a bottom feeder, and Ken had what you loved.

 

[water505]

You squeal like a pig so well.

I dislike you and your bosom buddy, Ken. You thought he was a cute slender coed. He had you jumping through all kinds of hoops to please him because of that. There's no hate of gays in what I said. Just pointing out your shame at getting caught doing what you did. Especially assisting Ken in using pictures of a poster's kids in AVs. I don't even accuse you of abandoning your standards and morals, because you never had any.

You're a bottom feeder, and Ken had what you loved.

Nothing like a lecture on morals from someone who supports a psychopath racist pervert who makes constant references to his fascination with cock sucking, buttfucking, and penises, not-so thinly veiled remarks about underage daughters, hoping for posters' progressive diseases to end in a slow, painful, death, and his favorite...their kids having car accidents resulting in permanent paralysis...then the best part...claims to be a victim of some pretend person named Ken who supposedly posted make believe pictures of his nonexistent children in their avs!

At this point most normal people would realize what an ass they've made of themselves and stop acting like a fucked up eighth grader with borderline hormonal issues.

But not you. Please don't stop. Keep up the good work.

 

[water505]

Now run off and have a meeting of the mindless with Throbwad so you two can come up with another brilliant response. I can hardly wait.

 

[Pookie]

Now run off and have a meeting of the mindless with Throbwad so you two can come up with another brilliant response. I can hardly wait.

Are you gonna commit liticide again if I don't? Is this getting to be too much for you again?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

*groan*


Colonel. I hate to say, I told you so, but


I TOLD YOU SO!!!

No, you did. You really did!

But I just... I just cannot fathom why someone would engage me in a debate on a legal matter and then refuse to objectively discuss the APPLICABLE LAW in favor of a poorly drawn analogy that I disavowed as worthless no less than four or five times.

People here have a "talent" for shutting their eyes so tightly you couldn't pry them open with a crowbar. You couldn't drill that earwax out with an oil well bit.

*sigh*

 

[Colonel Hogan]

And it was an obtuse one at best. The Colonel didn't address what I said in my post at all. He felt the need to ramble on about two other cases (again) where a robbery was aborted before a substantial step was completed, in which preparation was complete.

My post addressed his trying to apply that to his fucked up analogy that leaves a robber at a bank and us having to wait for the next season of Hogan v Pookie to see if he continues the robbery or not.

But he's NOT defending his fucked up analogy. Not at all. No way, Jose. He's just masturbating over the other cases. Neither refutes my position that the substantial step is still in play in Hogan v Pookie .... because he STOPPED the fucking analogy and left us with a cliffhanger.

But again, he's NOT trying to defend his self-admitted fucked up analogy. Nuh uh.

If you want, I can post pictures to help you understand that. Just let me know.

I find it mildly ironic that you keep lambasting me for "defending" my "fucked up analogy" while simultaneously lambasting me for "failing" to "address it" every time you keep bringing it up.

Speaking of the general subject of "ATTEMPT," I keep attempting to address it by actually citing the relevant law from appellate court opinions. But you elect not to go there and dismiss those case discussions as "rambling" and "not refuting your position," which they clearly do.

because he STOPPED the fucking analogy and left us with a cliffhanger.

Oh, is that the only problem? Fine. For purposes of my analogy, the "robber" showed up at the bank two hours after it closed and then promptly went home dejected never to return.

Done. No more cliff hanger. Did he therefore commit the CRIME of attempted robbery?

Please cite THE RELEVANT STATUTES AND CASELAW THAT SUPPORTS YOUR ANSWER!!! Because that's what normal people do when they make legal arguments.

I know the entire legal community awaits with baited breath for your penetrating LEGAL analysis.

 

[Pookie]

No, you did. You really did!

But I just... I just cannot fathom why someone would engage me in a debate on a legal matter and then refuse to objectively discuss the APPLICABLE LAW in favor of a poorly drawn analogy that I disavowed as worthless no less than four or five times.

People here have a "talent" for shutting their eyes so tightly you couldn't pry them open with a crowbar. You couldn't drill that earwax out with an oil well bit.

*sigh*

Maybe because I agreed with you, but you were too blinded by your desire to be right that you didn't see it? Or is it you just can't FATHOM that!

My post:

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=87014002&postcount=175

I'm not DEFENDING MY GODDAMNED FUCKING ANALOGY!!!

I am simply telling you that, based on the exceedingly clear appellate decisions of two different U. S. Circuit Courts, your insistence that the "substantial step" NECESSARY to support the arrest, trial and conviction on a charge of "ATTEMPTED" ROBBERY cannot take place and then be "aborted."

Your conviction that the "The substantial steps never occurred..." because they were "aborted," "ceased" or "incomplete" is a linguistic confusion with the " MERE PREPARATION" distinction from the "Manual of Modal Criminal Jury Instructions" from Ninth Circuit Court WHICH YOU ADMIRABLY DISCOVERED AND SHARED WITH US, remember?

There is no linguistic confusion. My position is it can be "STARTED" and then "ABORTED" while "IN PROGRESS", thus what could have been a substantial step never actually occurring in the eyes of the Court, which is what happened in those two cases and caused them to be overturned. If the robbers in the one case had not stopped, but instead CONTINUED toward the bank, my bet is the conviction stands.

But even by your own reasoning, if a "substantial step" "never occurred" FOR WHATEVER REASON, then the the CRIME of "ATTEMPTED" robbery did NOT occur for lack of that very requirement.

But in your fucked up analogy, the substantial step had NOT been ABORTED. You left it IN PROGRESS. You left us with a cliffhanger. He's in the process of carrying out a robbery. You took him all the way to the bank to discover the bank closed. What occurs next? Does he lie in wait behind a bush near the door? Attempt to break down the door somehow? Grab the bank manager who could possible walk up to the door at that moment? Do you have the cops knowing his plan and coming out of hiding and arresting him at that moment or as he approaches the bank door with or without a tire iron he might get from the trunk of his car? Or some other suspenseful action? Or does he simply abort the robbery attempt at that point by putting the car in drive and going home? Aborting a robbery doesn't mean he had not begun a substantial step with the cops possibly intervening. We're left to wonder and speculate. You left us hanging in YOUR drama ... that you just can't let go of. The suspense is just how the robber continues. Maybe you'll tell us how it goes sometime.

BOTH "mere preparation" and a "substantial step" are overt acts, the qualifying characteristics of EACH being well within the realm of reasonable disagreement between reasonable people. That easily explains why the suspects in Still and Nelson were arrested, tried and convicted.

Agreed, and nothing about it effects my description of what occurred in Hogan v Pookie.

What is not subject to debate is the substantive legal holding both Still and Nelson HELD -- and that is that all of those incriminating facts of casing the bank, arming themselves, and donning blonde wigs, were "mere preparation" and were NOT THE OPERATIVE LEGAL DEFINITION OF A "SUBSTANTIAL STEP." The Nelson case was a reversal by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, by the way, so I'm pretty sure they correctly applied the principles behind their OWN jury instructions you were kind enough to provide.

I agree that "mere preparation" isn't a substantial step. You left out that they aborted the robbery attempt. Your analogy gave us a robber having gone to the bank PREPARED to rob it, and then leaving us in suspense with a cliffhanger. The substantial step is IN PROGRESS in your fucked up analogy that you JUST CAN"T LET GO OF because Pookie can't be correct and you incorrect with a self-admitted fucked up analogy. That's the REAL issue going on with this.

I completely disagree with your contention that a substantial step can't be aborted while in progress. Your analogy presents just such a scenario, which is what my very first post regarding it was about:

If a suspicious character in a mask with a gun and an incriminating note for the teller shows up at a bank two hours after its closed, is that "attempted robbery"?

I research legal issues all the time, but that one kind of throws me.

A good case could be made that it is attempted robbery:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/attempted-crime/

A person can be charged with an attempted crime (such as "attempted robbery" or "attempted murder") even though not all the elements of the underlying crime were completed in order to be found guilty of the actual crime.

The following must occur for a person to be guilty of an attempted crime.

1.Criminal shows intent to commit a crime, and

2.the criminal comes dangerously close to successfully completing the crime but somehow does not complete all of the required elements.



Because the aspiring robber got the bank hours wrong would hardly alone stop that person from being charged with attempted robbery.

You left us with a cliffhanger, your very own analogy has just that possibility! The robber is already prepared when he goes to the bank. YOU leave him right there for us to wait for the next episode to see how things conclude. Yes, the bank is closed. And since you didn't stipulate whether he is a complete and utter idiot or not, HE CAN AND MAY STILL CONTINUE THE ROBBERY ATTEMPT he has already PREPARED FOR! It's likely a fools errand, but you leave it so it can happen in just that way.

If he chooses to leave the bank at that point, what COULD have been a substantial step will have been aborted. If he continues to pursue the robbery in the face of the bank being closed, then the step hasn't stopped. And it is still the substantial step being executed. It may be an utterly stupid thing for him to do, but you didn't say he was a competent robber. Actually, you present him as an incompetent one by not knowing the bank is closed.

As I said before, unforeseen things happen in a crime. Any number of things could happen after YOUR cliffhanger that could cause the robber to abort the robbery. But a substantial step is clearly in progress where you left the analogy.

It is why I hold that a substantial step can be started and then possibly aborted. Because you presented that very thing in your analogy.

People here have a "talent" for shutting their eyes so tightly you couldn't pry them open with a crowbar. You couldn't drill that earwax out with an oil well bit.

Oh, the irony!

 

[Pookie]

Oh, is that the only problem? Fine. For purposes of my analogy, the "robber" showed up at the bank two hours after it closed and then promptly went home dejected never to return.

Done. No more cliff hanger. Did he therefore commit the CRIME of attempted robbery?

Please cite THE RELEVANT STATUTES AND CASELAW THAT SUPPORTS YOUR ANSWER!!! Because that's what normal people do when they make legal arguments.

I know the entire legal community awaits with baited breath for your penetrating LEGAL analysis.

Editing your post well after you posted it is such a lame thing to do. You now want to change the scenario I was posting about to give yourself an out. Go fuck yourself with it.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It is why I hold that a substantial step can be started and then possibly aborted. Because you presented that very thing in your analogy.

If you ever bothered to consult a lawyer whose opinion you trust or seriously studied the relevant court opinions you would find that your belief that a "substantial step can be started and aborted" is nothing more than mere "preparation." That is what the Court specifically held in Buffington. I quoted the actual language.

Here it is again. For the last time. I promise.

but their actual conduct did not cross the boundary between preparation and attempt.

Maybe we should try an easier problem.

What color is "green"?

 

[Pookie]

If you ever bothered to consult a lawyer whose opinion you trust or seriously studied the relevant court opinions you would find that your belief that a "substantial step can be started and aborted" is nothing more than mere "preparation." That is what the Court specifically held in Buffington. I quoted the actual language.

Here it is again. For the last time. I promise.



Maybe we should try an easier problem.

What color is "green"?

And since you aren't a lawyer, pardon me if I reject your opinion out of hand.

You wanted to be right. You were damned if you were going to be wrong. You completely ignored substantial parts of my posts, intentionally or not. Colonel Hogan couldn't possibly wrong. My original post didn't say anything other than it could be argued - "A good case could be made that it is attempted robbery". That's it.

Given your inability to focus on what is actually being said, and not what you want to be right about, it's a good thing you aren't a lawyer.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Editing your post well after you posted it is such a lame thing to do. You now want to change the scenario I was posting about to give yourself an out. Go fuck yourself with it.

I simply finally resolved your complaint that I had left a "cliffhanger" two minutes before you once again complained about the cliffhanger. Check the time stamps on the respective posts.

Sorry. It happens. I wasn't trying to trick you. You asked for clarification and I gave it. How is that giving myself "an out"? I FINALLY rectified the very oversight you've been bitching about.

You now have all the information you claim I have been withholding to apply YOUR legal theory to MY fucked up analogy. Do it or don't.

Not that it is in any way the least bit meaningful.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

My original post didn't say anything other than it could be argued - "A good case could be made that it is attempted robbery". That's it.

Not according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. And theirs is the only opinion that counts.

 

[Pookie]

I simply finally resolved your complaint that I had left a "cliffhanger" two minutes before you once again complained about the cliffhanger. Check the time stamps on the respective posts.

Sorry. It happens. I wasn't trying to trick you. You asked for clarification and I gave it. How is that giving myself "an out"? I FINALLY rectified the very oversight you've been bitching about.

You now have all the information you claim I have been withholding to apply YOUR legal theory to MY fucked up analogy. Do it or don't.

Not that it is in any way the least bit meaningful.

I quoted your post to reply to within minutes after you posted it. You edited it a half hour later. And I didn't ask for clarification. You finally read what I had been posting and realized you were fucked up. Since you seem to enjoy fucking up, use your post above to fuck yourself with as well.

You and I both know you weren't paying attention to what I was posting. Trying to save face now just looks pathetic.

 

[Pookie]

Not according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. And theirs is the only opinion that counts.

No they didn't rule on your analogy. But nice try, liar.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I quoted your post to reply to within minutes after you posted it. You edited it a half hour later.

No. You did not. You can't even tell time.

I edited my 11:23 post at 11:57 -- two minutes BEFORE you responded to my 11:23 post at 11:59. It was mere coincidence. Shit happens.

How does my 11:57 edit constitute "moving the goal posts" on a response from you that I could not have known you were going to make?

One more time: I posted at 11:23 and edited at 11:57. YOUR next post AFTER 11:23 was not until 11:59.

Now how in the fuck was my edit a half hour AFTER you posted at 11:59???

You know what?? Fuck it. Welcome to IGNORE.

 

[Pookie]

No. You did not. You can't even tell time.

I edited my 11:23 post at 11:57 -- two minutes BEFORE you responded to my 11:23 post at 11:59. It was mere coincidence. Shit happens.

How does my 11:57 edit constitute "moving the goal posts" on a response from you that I could not have known you were going to make?

One more time: I posted at 11:23 and edited at 11:57. YOUR next post AFTER 11:23 was not until 11:59.

Now how in the fuck was my edit a half hour AFTER you posted at 11:59???

You know what?? Fuck it. Welcome to IGNORE.

Jeebus fucking Christ. You're no fucking better than debating with AJ. He rarely pays attention to what is actually posted either.

Here is what I stated:

Editing your post well after you posted it is such a lame thing to do. You now want to change the scenario I was posting about to give yourself an out. Go fuck yourself with it.

Yes. I quoted it to REPLY to minutes after you originally posted it. You do see the little "Quote" button at the bottom right corner of everyone's posts, doncha?

Or is this just another example of how you don't pay attention to things?

 

[Aglaopheme]

Welp

 

[about_average]

I gather from one of your earlier posts that your assertion that "their desire and goal to break the law" is based on your reading of CFR § 110.20.

This earlier post from another thread deals with that issue. Don't know if you saw it, but would appreciate your comment. http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=86984146&postcount=270

I'd skimmed it, too much arguing about "attempted robbery" so I quit reading those exchanges, but I did click your link and read it.
My position is two fold, publicly available opposition research is fair game. Illegally obtained information is not. For example, the person who got someone's SSN and used that to get "opposition research". Anything promoted as "highly sensitive in nature" has a very high probability of being illegally obtained.
Then there's the matter of "substantial value". People make pretty good livings doing opposition research so it meets the substantive value test.
And the law clearly says nothing of substantive value from foreign entities.

Until Trump, all campaigns knew you didn't go there.

There is an even longer exposition on this subject by a REAL legal expert if you're interested. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/14/the-strikingly-broad-consequences-of-the-argument-that-donald-trump-jr-broke-the-law-by-expressing-interest-in-russian-dirt-on-hillary-clinton/

Didn't read that, I never claimed he broke the law.
I said that it was his intent to.

 

[Ishmael]

I'd skimmed it, too much arguing about "attempted robbery" so I quit reading those exchanges, but I did click your link and read it.
My position is two fold, publicly available opposition research is fair game. Illegally obtained information is not. For example, the person who got someone's SSN and used that to get "opposition research". Anything promoted as "highly sensitive in nature" has a very high probability of being illegally obtained.
Then there's the matter of "substantial value". People make pretty good livings doing opposition research so it meets the substantive value test.
And the law clearly says nothing of substantive value from foreign entities.

Until Trump, all campaigns knew you didn't go there.

Didn't read that, I never claimed he broke the law.
I said that it was his intent to.

Quo quid pro. No value received, no value given. Just that simple.

As fare as the "Trump campaign" goes, just how do you know? To the best of my knowledge 'foreign intelligence' has been a part of every campaign, to a greater or lessor degree, going all the way back to Adams. His opponent, Thomas Jefferson, was heavily aided by the French. Adams didn't care for the French (because he sucked as a diplomat and they treated him accordingly) and he couldn't side with the British (who heavily tried to influence him to do so). Foreign influence and money has been part and parcel of US politics since the founding.

Go read some history books.

Ishmael

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I'd skimmed it, too much arguing about "attempted robbery" so I quit reading those exchanges, but I did click your link and read it.
My position is two fold, publicly available opposition research is fair game. Illegally obtained information is not. For example, the person who got someone's SSN and used that to get "opposition research". Anything promoted as "highly sensitive in nature" has a very high probability of being illegally obtained.
Then there's the matter of "substantial value". People make pretty good livings doing opposition research so it meets the substantive value test.
And the law clearly says nothing of substantive value from foreign entities.

Until Trump, all campaigns knew you didn't go there.

Didn't read that, I never claimed he broke the law.
I said that it was his intent to.

You make a great point about the illegality issue. Nixon's idea of "opposition research" was to have guys break in and steal it. Coercion, out right bribery, is clearly out of bounds. And, yes, people do make a good living doing opposition research correctly.

But to equate the obvious value of a systematic, organized research campaign, with someone coming up to you with a scandalous rumor about your opponent that turns out to be true and then the FEC trying place a value on it as an in-kind contribution, or, in the instance of it having come from a foreign national, criminalize that person's basic right to communicate with you, is also out of bounds, and really is not what the law intended.

IMHO.

 

[Ishmael]

You make a great point about the illegality issue. Nixon's idea of "opposition research" was to have guys break in and steal it. Coercion, out right bribery, is clearly out of bounds. And, yes, people do make a good living doing opposition research correctly.

But to equate the obvious value of a systematic, organized research campaign, with someone coming up to you with a scandalous rumor about your opponent that turns out to be true and then the FEC trying place a value on it as an in-kind contribution, or, in the instance of it having come from a foreign national, criminalize that person's basic right to communicate with you, is also out of bounds, and really is not what the law intended.

IMHO.

It goes right to the heart of the 1st amendment.

Ishmael

 

[Aglaopheme]

Someone coming up to you = flying half way around the world to me you?

Scandalous rumor = "If it's what you say I love it"?

You've no idea if it was well researched information or not. Donald Jr sure seemed to think it was valuable information. You've been down playing the information passed and the person passing the information all throughout this thread. You also somehow managed to quote an article that only had "experts" that agreed with you, while everything else I have read had at least one opposing view.



Also, when did the 1st Anendment start applying to foreign nationals?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Nothing like a lecture on morals from someone who supports a psychopath racist pervert who makes constant references to his fascination with cock sucking, buttfucking, and penises, not-so thinly veiled remarks about underage daughters, hoping for posters' progressive diseases to end in a slow, painful, death, and his favorite...their kids having car accidents resulting in permanent paralysis...then the best part...claims to be a victim of some pretend person named Ken who supposedly posted make believe pictures of his nonexistent children in their avs!

At this point most normal people would realize what an ass they've made of themselves and stop acting like a fucked up eighth grader with borderline hormonal issues.

But not you. Please don't stop. Keep up the good work.

Reported.

 

[Ishmael]

Someone coming up to you = flying half way around the world to me you?

Scandalous rumor = "If it's what you say I love it"?

You've no idea if it was well researched information or not. Donald Jr sure seemed to think it was valuable information. You've been down playing the information passed and the person passing the information all throughout this thread. You also somehow managed to quote an article that only had "experts" that agreed with you, while everything else I have read had at least one opposing view.



Also, when did the 1st Anendment start applying to foreign nationals?

Bullshit.

Ishmael

 

[Hypoxia]

Mafia chieftains make better excuses.
But they hire better lawyers.
Oh wait, Tromp hired a mafia lawyer.
Will his excuses get better?