Posted on 07/30/2018 9:31:18 AM PDT by monkeyshine
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
But Trump wasn't likely to face criminal charges anyway. This is a political fight not a legal one. They are not arguing before a judge they are arguing in the court of public opinion. Assume for argument's sake that collusion is not a crime but that Trump did "collude with Russia" in some ways to help with his campaign. If Mueller could prove that collusion it would look very bad politically, it would derail his presidential agenda, and probably lead to impeachment. Impeachment is a political not a legal process and Congress decides what a "High Crime and Misdemeanor" is. Even still, they would not impeach him for a non-crime. They would say Mueller proved that he lied to the country about the collusion, and therefor he probably did obstruct justice or did use his office to intimidate witnesses and investigators, and was derelict of his duties as POTUS.
Mueller is behaving quite cynically. With regard to his investigation of Trump, Mueller is pretty much free to stretch, bend and break his legal ethics because as long he does not bring an indictment, there will be no presiding judge to rule on the legality of the evidence nor to sanction Mueller for breaking his oath. Mueller's raid on Cohen is a great example of Mueller stretching too far. A client has to be free to say almost anything to his attorney - he could even admit to a heinous crime - and these conversations cannot be used as evidence. Pretty much the only way to break atty-client privilege is if the client tells the attorney in advance that he is going to commit a crime, or if the attorney was involved in a crime with his client. But even then, it would only break the privilege with regard to evidence of the crime they did together. Any other activity the client told the attorney about unrelated crimes would remain protected.
In the case of Cohen I am hard pressed to understand what the crime is that allows him to break his legal duty to defend his client or how Cohen was involved in that crime. It would be a big stretch to argue that "knowing or agreeing that his son should attend a meeting to discuss Russian provided 'dirt'" is a crime. Even for DJTJ, just showing up, even if he expected to discuss "dirt", would be a stretch. Maybe DJTJ could be accused of some kind of conspiracy to break campaign laws, but he didn't know what was going to be presented before he got there, so there is no way he could know if it would be criminal. He'd have to go to find out what was on offer before he could know it was prohibited. And besides, we now know that there was no dirt to provide; the person who invited DJTJ to the meeting only told him they had dirt in order to lure him into a conversation about the Maginstky Act. So, no dirt, no quid pro quo, no crime.
This buzz about Cohen testifying Trump knew about the tower meeting is a violation of atty-client ethics. If Mueller took it before a judge both Mueller and Cohen would face possible disbarment. But Mueller isn't going to use Cohen's evidence in a courtroom. He is just trying to pressure Trump and make him look as bad as possible in the eyes of the public. It is mostly red meat for the anti-Trump zombies. Mueller can break the rules of evidence gathering, suppresses Trump's right to legal representation, intimidates Cohen into breaking his oath and more, and there is no way to sanction him for it and only one way to stop it: fire him. As far as investigating POTUS personally, Mueller is free to behave like a snake in the grass, without any accountability, as long as he doesn't use the improperly/illegally obtained evidence in a court of law.
collusion isn’t a crime. conspiracy is a crime. collusion is a weasel word the democrats are hiding behind.
They both have said exactly the same things both statements are also correct. By the way it isn’t a crime so can the article refute that? What contradiction is there saying both that you didn’t do something and that it doesn’t happen to be a crime in any event.
I say ph—k with their HEADS.
Nothing contradictory in those statements at all.
“I didn’t do it. But even if it had done it, it’s not against the law.”
Leftists are such ignorant asswipes!! I’m so glad I no longer know any of them in person.
If Collusion is a crime, then Obama should have gone to prison for his European tour during his first campaign. All those foreign endorsements. Remember Rudy warning at the GOP convention that Obama would come back with European ideas.
What about all the foreigners that funded Obama campaign that the Obama campaign refused to collect data on, because it would show illegal contributions from foriegners.
If Collusion is a crime, then Obama should have gone to prison for his European tour during his first campaign. All those foreign endorsements. Remember Rudy warning at the GOP convention that Obama would come back with European ideas.
What about all the foreigners that funded Obama campaign that the Obama campaign refused to collect data on, because it would show illegal contributions from foriegners.
Ummmm Trump publicly months ago pointed out “collusion” is not a crime.
Does anyone here not believe that if Dems take House Trump won’t be impeached? Of course he will. That is as much of a certainty as the Sun rising in the East.
Put them both together and what is being said is this: Trump did not collude, and even if he did, it’s not a crime. i.e. why are we even talking about this?
This thing is only useful during an election year. This means that either the D’s are just so ticked that they had to do it in spite, or it was planned to be a big deal come the 2018 election cycle.
My concern is that it is the latter. It would be interesting if Mueller DOES have a huge case against Trump but is simply waiting for the right time bo bring it forward.
I doubt it, but that is about the only path I see to him and the democrats “winning” on this issue.
The Fraud used OUR tax dollars to meddle in Israel’s elections at the behest of our and Israel’s enemies.
The Fraud is a god to half of American voters.
Trump himself used to claim: “it’s not a crime......but there was no collusion. “
Maybe “collusion” is not a crime, but it is sufficiently shady that people who do not understand the “niggardly” is not a racial slur, nor is “chink”, referring to a gap or incomplete coverage, any kind of racial slur either, could make the connection it is something to do with “conspiracy”, the term which DOES refer to a very real crime.
Step 2: Even if he did do it, it isn't even a crime.
Step 3: This is no longer an investigation, but outright harassment for political points.
Not sure how much clearer it can be.
Yup. Colluding takes place 24/7/365.
Quit talking about “collusion” & “conspiracy”. They both imply something sinister.
Opposition research is all it was and all it should be called.
To a liberal, they think that means Trump admits guilt. They’ve reached so far they’ve fallen over.
Quit talking about “collusion” & “conspiracy”. They both imply something sinister.
Opposition research is all it was and all it should be called
This article is one of the worst pieces of spin hack jobs I’ve ever seen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.