Today in Trump's 1st term as President

[Bitter Clinger]

[mojo84]

Russia has tried to influence our elections for decades. The US does the same.

You're absolutely right. Illegals have been crossing the border for years, why care? It's only a misdemeanor. We build nukes, Russia and China build nukes, if N. Korea and Iran build nukes, why care? China steals intellectual property, but so has the US thru the years... why care? trump lies about protecting preexisting conditions, caravans and all manner of things, but all politicians lie, why care? Hillary did something years ago, but why would I be interested in that? Why care?

Your thoughtful and considered analysis is visionary in it's application. Truly applicable in any situation.

It only send to be an issue if a republican is elected.

Where was your outrage over Obama's and Hillary's Russia connections?

Here is obvious collusion.

[mojo84]

Russia has tried to influence our elections for decades. The US does the same.

You're absolutely right. Illegals have been crossing the border for years, why care? It's only a misdemeanor. We build nukes, Russia and China build nukes, if N. Korea and Iran build nukes, why care? China steals intellectual property, but so has the US thru the years... why care? trump lies about protecting preexisting conditions, caravans and all manner of things, but all politicians lie, why care? Hillary did something years ago, but why would I be interested in that? Why care?

Your thoughtful and considered analysis is visionary in it's application. Truly applicable in any situation.

Do you think regurgitating leftist talking points is "visionary"?

[G26ster]

Stephen Schulhofer, a law professor at New York University, said the act of collusion can be either benign or criminal, depending on the circumstance.

“One of the most commonly used provisions of the U.S. Code, 18 USC §371, makes it a federal crime for two or more people to conspire ‘to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose,'” Schulhofer told us via email. “Agreeing (colluding) with someone for a perfectly lawful purpose, like arranging a game of golf or tennis, is not a crime. But colluding with the Russians, i.e. agreeing to cooperate, encourage or assist them in any way in pursuing anything they were doing that was illegal, is most certainly a crime.”

Here's some quotes on your NY law professor's "collusion" conclusion from a far more respected liberal legal mind.

"Alan Dershowitz said if the allegation is true, it is a "political problem" and not a "legal problem" because so-called "collusion" to get dirt on a political opponent is not a "federal crime." "Even if the president actively sought material dirt on Hillary Clinton, terrible thing, but even if he sought it, but the dirt had already been gathered, and he wasn't asking them to hack the DNC or do anything criminal, that would not be a crime," said Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School.
"It would show, perhaps, 'collusion," he said. "But there's nothing in the federal code that makes collusion itself a crime."

[Abraham]

G26ster posted: "Also, for the life of me, I don't know why folks insist on quoting multiples of previous posts for a one line comment.

Yes, it's a bizarre practice.

Many seem to find it necessary to copy so many different previous posts before they post their own, the point they're trying to make becomes a confused mess.

[rotor]

And again, even if Trump or his people asked the Russians if they had any dirt on HRC (call it collusion or not) what Federal crime was committed?

It appears that the main question for Mueller's investigation was about obstruction of justice, the question being triggered by the President's comments to Comey, Comey's firing, and the President's comments afterward. Was there obstruction? Was hiding collusion the motivator to obstruct? Are there other factors, political or business or personal, to motivate the President to obstruct?

Stephen Schulhofer, a law professor at New York University, said the act of collusion can be either benign or criminal, depending on the circumstance.

“One of the most commonly used provisions of the U.S. Code, 18 USC §371, makes it a federal crime for two or more people to conspire ‘to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose,'” Schulhofer told us via email. “Agreeing (colluding) with someone for a perfectly lawful purpose, like arranging a game of golf or tennis, is not a crime. But colluding with the Russians, i.e. agreeing to cooperate, encourage or assist them in any way in pursuing anything they were doing that was illegal, is most certainly a crime.”

Do you remember?

Exactly. To quote you i.e. agreeing to cooperate, encourage or assist them in any way in pursuing anything they were doing that was illegal, is most certainly a crime if you collude to do something already illegal it is a crime. Collusion though is not the crime. Collusion to do something that is illegal is a crime i.e. fraud against the U.S. government. Getting the dirt out on HRC is not illegal (although the people that hacked her accounts were doing illegal acts). So, I wish that Trump was able to get the dirty inside stuff on the true criminal, HRC, that would have put her in jail. The NYT publishes dirt that was illegally obtained all the time, called leaks, and it is not illegal for them to publish. Ellsberg papers were published legally. Trump could have released HRC email stuff obtained illegally by (we don't know) without him being a criminal and without the non-illegal act of collusion.

[Abraham]

Leftists: Blah, blah, Trump, blah, blah, blah, Trump, blah, blah, blah...

More unintentional humor.

Leftists: Our hysteria is righteous, blah, blah, blah, we want free stuff, you gimme, blah, blah, blah...

[G26ster]

G26ster posted: "Also, for the life of me, I don't know why folks insist on quoting multiples of previous posts for a one line comment.

Yes, it's a bizarre practice.

Many seem to find it necessary to copy so many different previous posts before they post their own, the point they're trying to make becomes a confused mess.

I don't think they find it "necessary," but rather too inconvenient to strip out the previous non related posts they are replying to. When you hit the Quote button, all posts related to original post are shown in the "Post a Reply" block, and they just type in their brief comment below all the non germane posts. Hence we have to scroll endlessly through all the previous posts just to read their brief comment on one segment of all we scrolled through. I find it frustrating, but of course other's MMV.

[Abraham]

G26ster,

One of my 'practices' is to 'not read' all the quotes.

Skip right past em I do.

Saves time.

Besides, all that extra posting verbiage is generally boring, so why bother spending time reading all that's come before and already read?

Those who copy a jillion previous posts with a one line post of their own...ugh.

[philip964]

G26ster,

One of my 'practices' is to 'not read' all the quotes.

Skip right past em I do.

Saves time.

Besides, all that extra posting verbiage is generally boring, so why bother spending time reading all that's come before and already read?

Those who copy a jillion previous posts with a one line post of their own...ugh.

All I ask for is paragraphs, like the post above. Thanks in advance.

[Abraham]

Even when commenting about quoting causes unnecessary quoting.

Sigh...

I know it's a hard habit to break and I blame no one in particular...it's endemic.

[G26ster]

G26ster,

One of my 'practices' is to 'not read' all the quotes.

Skip right past em I do.

Saves time.

I don't read them, I'm just wearing out my finger and my patience scrolling past them.

[Abraham]

G26ster,

Yikes!

Are you also using a hand magnifier?

Get some reading computer glasses.

Are you some kind of old fogey...like me.

Wait, my old timers is acting up, I think you once stated you're like late seventies or perhaps now early eighties?

[G26ster]

Nah, just a kid at 76. Can't ya tell by my avitar?

[mojo84]