Next you're gonna tell me that if I tell the guy next to me in the bar that I'd like to rape the current Hollywood sex goddess, that I'm guilty even if I don't do it!

Another straw man argument proving nothing, Stucki.

If the "sex goddess" you talked about was subsequently raped yet it was discovered you had over 70 contacts with her while claiming to have had zero, I can assure you that you'd be a target of the investigation into the crime.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously almost a century ago that it was not a violation of their First Amendment rights to be prosecuted under espionage laws for those Americans who chose to "speak freely" with foreign adversaries of the United States, Schenck v. United States.

Come on, Stucki, there are limitations to every single one of our freedoms... you know that, right?

That's the part that you're missing: the rules are different for an active presidential nominee than they are for you and me. The campaign finance laws were promulgated by both sides, and it's too late to complain that they aren't lax enough.

As for enforcement, I'll just quote LWYH at [15]: if Republicans lose the House, there will be nothing to prevent Congress from actually holding the administration accountable.

Yep.

Sorry, I don't believe a single one of those things is a "crime", but even if there is statutory verbiage somewhere attempting to make such things a "crime", if they are all unenforceable, what difference does it make?

Tell you what. I hereby confess publicly to knowing that the Russians were about to release stolen emails to the internet, and failing to report it to the feds. Please, first chance you get, kindly rat me out. Call Mueller, call the FBI, call the CIA, call whomever you like. I promise to let you know the moment those "feds" come to get me.

Let’s also not forget that phone records from Donny Jr. show him making calls to an unknown cell phone number immediately following his phone calls with the Russian attorney and just prior to his meeting with her at Trump Tower. House Republicans refused to issue a subpoena to find out exactly who the cell phone belongs to, but it is believed to be one of Trump’s private cell phones. Nothing better than an investigation that refuses to investigate anything that might make the subject of said “investigation” look bad!

Paul Ryan warned today that if Republicans lose the House, there will be nothing to prevent Congress from actually holding the administration accountable for their actions via the issuing of subpoenas. Basically admitting that Republicans have refused to do their duty and have in fact actively permitted this administration to violate the law and rules for their own benefits.

Oh, come on. You know better than that. Think about it: if the Trump Campaign knew that Russia was about to commit a crime (say releasing stolen emails to the internet), and didn't report it to the Feds, that's a crime in itself. If they used this inside information to coordinate the campaign's response ahead of time, that's a crime. If any of his people coordinated this with the Russians, that's a huge crime. And if Trump knew anything about it himself, he's a criminal too.

Now ask yourself: do you really want to bet that 19 of Trump's top campaign aides, including his son, son-in-law, and Campaign Manager, had contact with Russian intelligence operatives, and Trump never knew about it at all? Do ya feel lucky?

Thanks for the link! I still find the strategy very Giuliani (he knows Mueller well and served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York) but Jay Sekulow's TV smarts would serve very well in the crafting of the paraphrases served up as tasty and easily digested soundbites for Fox and circulated forever on YouTube.

Good.

According to the Washington Post, the questions weren't presented in those words at all:

Mueller’s team agreed to provide the president’s lawyers with more specific information about the subjects that prosecutors wished to discuss with the president. With those details in hand, Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow compiled a list of 49 questions that the team believed the president would be asked, according to three of the four people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly . . .

After investigators laid out 16 specific subjects they wanted to review with the president and added a few topics within each one, Sekulow broke the queries down into 49 separate questions, according to people familiar with the process.

https://www.salon.com/2018/05/02/robert-muellers-questions-for-donald-trump-who-wrote-them-who-leaked-them-what-do-they-tell-us/

People are still speculating about who actually leaked the questions but it wasn't Mueller. This article ends with the belief that Blotus leaked them.

How do you define "plot"? Sounds like that could well equate to "discuss', "talk about", etc., right?
Does the 1st ammendment specify speech to be "free" only when it's not about getting dirt on your political opponent, or hacking his email???

Next you're gonna tell me that if I tell the guy next to me in the bar that I'd like to rape the current Hollywood sex goddess, that I'm guilty even if I don't do it!

I doubt that.

That's why "conspiracy" is such a big deal. If you plot to commit a crime, you're basically guilty of the same crime, even if it is never committed. If you plot with someone outside the US to commit a criminal act (by US law), then you are also guilty. Period.

As for [3], let's see how many prosecutions/sentences/guilty pleas Mueller winds up with when he's done. Which isn't going to be anytime soon, so settle in for the long haul.

Kick [4] -

Didn't Mueller spend his career on RICO cases? Seems like the right guy for the job...

-CW

BREAKING DIFI NEWS!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/05/01/sen-dianne-feinstein-says-she-no-longer-opposes-legal-marijuana/

She's getting worried about the challenge from her left (De Leon). Primary's only a little over a month away...

But, cynicism aside, for whatever her reasons, welcome to the club, DiFi. Little late, but whatever...

-CW

Yeah, it's definitely illegal, probably even immoral and fattening, too.

Glad you're seeing things my way.

How about you tell me about all the prosecutions you've heard about, you know those 13 Russians that Mueller indicted. And after that, list how many convictions he got!

Since it is partially public record, I will tell you about one... Yevgeniy Nikulin. I have posted about him on this board many eons ago. After being indicted by the DOJ, he was arrested in Prague and sat in a jail cell for months while being sought for extradition by Russia and the United States, he was extradited to America recently against the wishes of his mother Russia.

You are on your own now, Stucki. Do some research and you might stumble onto something. :)

LET'S PLAY SEMANTICS

It is not illegal to "lie"... sounds like a fact.
Oh, wait! It is illegal to "lie" on SF-86 (I'm looking at you, Jared Kushner). It's also illegal tlie to Congress or an FBI agent... just ask Papadop, Gates, Flynn, etc.; lying can be illegal, and you would be charged with the legal term of art under "perjury" statutes.

"Collusion" actually is a crime. As a legal term of art, collusion is generally used in antitrust lawsuits where business entities collude to fix prices or defraud consumers or another businesses in violation of federal antitrust laws.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=232

It is illegal to commit "collusion" in violation of federal law, but the statutes under which one would be charged are for "fraud," "conspiracy," and "RICO."

Hint 1: It's not a "witch hunt"; it's a "snitch hunt," and several have been found.

Hint 2: It's RICO.

Yeah, it's definitely illegal, probably even immoral and fattening, too.

How about you tell me about all the prosecutions you've heard about, you know those 13 Russians that Mueller indicted. And after that, list how many convictions he got!

THEN, and only then, you'll have convinced me that it's illegal.

"Beginning on day-1 (the day after the election)," you were claiming that hacking emails is not illegal, which is asinine. Getting someone out of U.S. jurisdiction to hack someone else's emails is absolutely illegal and would warrant at minimum a charge such as aiding and abetting.

Got anything else asinine you'd like to admit to?

In response, I got an avalanche of naive nonsensical ideologically-driven, politically motivated responses that all boiled down to "There's simply no conceivable way that a buffoon like Trump could possibly have defeated our pre-ordained candidate, who led in all the polls, without committing a crime of some sort!"

So here we are a year-and-a-half later, millions of squandered legal dollars poorer, and the buffoon still sits in the oval office (whenever he's not golfing), having the best laugh of all -(uno, the LAST one).