Collusion (click here)
A collaborative agreement, usually secret, amongst rivals to prevent open competition through deceptive means in order to gain a market advantage. The parties may collude by agreeing to fix prices, limit or restrict supply, share insider information, or divide the market.
Conspiracy (click here)
An agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal. Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement. An overt act is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one. See Whitfield v. United States, 453 U.S. 209 (2005). The illegal act is the conspiracy's "target offense."
Conspiracy generally carries a penalty on its own. In addition, conspiracies allow for derivative liability where conspirators can also be punished for the illegal acts carried out by other members, even if they were not directly involved. Thus, where one or more members of the conspiracy committed illegal acts to further the conspiracy's goals, all members of the conspiracy may be held accountable for those acts.
Where no one has actually committed a criminal act, the punishment varies. Some conspiracy statutes assign the same punishment for conspiracy as for the target offense. Others impose esser penalties.
Conspiracy applies to both civil and criminal offenses. For example, you may conspire to commit murder, or conspire to commit fraud.
Conspiracy is codified, the collusion is not.
18 U.S. Code § 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
If two or more persons (click here) conspire either 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, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Ratcliff is parsing words. (click here) The Special Counsel is not able to conduct an investigation without free and open access to people and facts, THEREFORE, considering obstruction of justice is defined in the PURPOSE of the Special Counsel. Ratcliff's grandstanding is a clown show.
...Two memos (click here) authored by the Office of Legal Counsel—one in 1973, in the midst of the Nixon impeachment saga, the other in 2000, on the heels of the Clinton impeachment saga—take the view that a sitting president is immune from indictment. By contrast, two different memos—authored by the Office of Special Counsel investigating Nixon, and the Office of Independent Counsel investigating Clinton—reach the opposite conclusion....
I might add since Former AGSessions resigned the AG position has been manipulated by Donald J. Trump. It appears the Former AG Sessions was the only one of Trump's AGs that actually respect the Rule of Law.
18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 73—OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (click here)
18 U.S. Code § 1510.Obstruction of criminal investigations (click here)
(a)
Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Rep. Jim Jordan is trying to redefine the truth in applying the Rule of Law. That is why Former Special Counsel Mueller disagrees with him. I did not find a formal webpage for Jim Jordan. He has no respect for his constituency and their access to his time. In checking it now there is a website. (click here) I swear I didn't find it before.
Truth (click here)
Conformable to fact; correct; exact; actual; genuine; honest “In one sense, that only is true which is conformable to the actual state of things. In that sense, a statement is untrue which does not express things exactly as they are. Rut in another and broader sense, the word ‘true’ is often used as a synonym of ‘honest,’ ‘sincere,’ ‘not fraudulent.’ ” Moulor v. American L. Ins. Co.. Ill U. S. 345, 4 Sup. Ct. 400, 28 L. Ed. 447.
The truth in law is based in evidence. The Truth is not abstract or plastic/pliable. There is a truth within any aspect of the Rule of Law. An attempt to change the definition of the Truth is a direct attack on the USA Constitution.
Aaron Zebley
...A graduate of the College of William & Mary in 1992 (click here) who earned his law degree in 1996 from the University of Virginia School of Law, Zebley worked as a special agent in the FBI's Counter Terrorism Division before crossing paths with Mueller....
Christopher Steele was never interviewed to the extent I have read the Special Counsel report. I would like people to cite a specific part of the report where Steele was interviewed. The Former Director is not required to speculate on something he has no direct information. If Steele was never interviewed there is no way of validating the facts. Steele cannot be charged without sound verifiable proof.
Glenn Simpson (click here)
The founder of a political research firm that hired former British spy Christopher Steele to compile a dossier on alleged contacts between then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and his advisers and Russia is refusing to testify to a Republican-led investigation by Congress....
I don't blame him for not cooperating.
Did the president destroy evidence? It depends on how evidence is defined. If asking people to lie is evidence, then he did attempt to destroy evidence.
Curtail = Limit
There was no specific point that the Former Special Counsel made the determination there was no conspiracy. It was a progressive decision as he reviewed one aspect of evidence from another. There was no specific point until he reviewed everything and didn't find what he was looking for that would be soundly conclusive. He determined the conspiracy issue after he reviewed the final evidence relating to that.
No one can intelligently discuss the evidence because it is secluded somewhere in the myriad of halls and rooms in the USA Federal Government.
The fact the Former Special Counsel recognizes he does not necessarily subscribe to the same conclusions as others is also a recognition that other applications of the facts can apply within the evidence without defacing same evidence. He also recognizes internal discussions within the department as absolutely confidential. Therefore, there are discussions that occur within the department.
In other words, Robert Mueller applies the law so the charges stick. That is a standard for criminal prosecution that also wins the respect of judges. In other words, when Mueller and/or his agents show up before a judge it is dead serious without question. The American people do not see his day to day work, but, the QUALITY of the FBI's or the Special Counsel's evidence is valid. That is the environment he works in.
The Former Special Counsel is not responsible for the letter from the DOJ. Just because the Republicans don't like the words Robert Mueller says, does not mean those words are invalid. The DOJ is known to be under the influence of the President's Defense Attorney/Attorney General.
The citing of public media reports occurs frequently because Trump carries out his crimes in full public view/in plain sight.
It is legitimate to say the Former Special Counsel differs in the way Attorney General Barr handles evidence and the report of that evidence in regard to his investigation. The evidence of that statement is the letter to Barr from Mueller on March 27, 2019 (click here of the reporting of the Associated Press).
Wait a minute. Do Congressional members of the President's party read mainstream media?
The FISA Court was mentioned as well. After reading only a part of the evidence about Carter Page the FISA Court better have been asked for further information on Page. Absolutely. Page was knee deep in Russian influence. Give me a break, he was a guest of a Russian economic university to make a speech.
The beautiful part of Page's speech is that he was supposed to set his appearance aside to allow Trump to make a speech and he did it anyway. Page was never insulted by the Russians when he was asked to have Trump speak, he continued to do so and made the Russian newspapers. Carter Page WANTED the relationship with the Russians at any cost.
Rep. Ben Cline (click here) is making a speech and not asking questions.
There is one Special Counsel report and while others are always tempted to add their own interpretation, there is only one document and only one Special Counsel and his extensive expertise and assistants.
Barr is investigating the Steele Dossier as part of an anti-constitutional agenda. That is why Mueller won't even lean into the question.
By Dan Merica, CNN
Updated 5:18 PM ET, Tue June 13, 2017
Washington - President Donald Trump (click here) interviewed Robert Mueller as a potential replacement for fired FBI Director James Comey the day before the former FBI director was named special counsel, a White House official said Tuesday.
The official, who would not detail what the two discussed during the interview, said it took place on May 16....
It is the responsibility of all the press/media to NOW print the truth. Trump is lying and the Former Special Counsel firmly denied he was ever interested in the Director of the FBI position after James Comey was fired. He only spoke to Trump about the agency and it's work.
"Allan Weissman attended Hillary Clinton's party." Give me a break, political preferences are not legally held as a requirement.
FBI Jobs (click here)
Deputy Director McCabe Ethical Guidance and Recusal (click here)
FBI Agents collect evidence and uphold the Rule of Law above all else in their lives when conducting their jobs. It is an insult to imply otherwise. If there is a problem FOUND with a particular agent there are policies. Agents that use their official handheld for personal matters are foolish, although there are going to be times such issues with family might prove prudent.
It is now 11 minutes beyond the agreed ending time at the US House testimony.
Trump doesn't govern. He insults. That is not governing.
The Steele Dossier is not the basis of the Special Counsel investigation. The FBI as early as 2015 detected activity by Russians in the USA. Then the FBI again after the hacking of the DCCC, DNC and Clinton campaign found it necessary to continue a Russian investigation as the evidence pointed in that direction. The then Director of the FBI was fired per Twitter by the President. Russians showed up at the White House in a matter of hours following the Director of the FBI. There was absolutely no doubt an investigation was to go forward. The Special Counsel was the only impartial method left to the country to continue the investigation of the Russian attack on the 2016 elections. The Steele Dossier had absolutely nothing to do with the investigation lead by Former Director Robert S. Mueller, III.
12:03 pm
12:45 pm The Former Special Counsel was helpful.
