"Collusion" is in fact a crime

1. 87

   Don Wposted 6 years ago

   "I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime . . . Collusion is not a crime".
   (Rudy Giuliani )(1)
   
   The federal law code says:
   
   "whoever. . . being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
   
   (A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
   (B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
   (C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person . . ."(2)(my emphasis)
   
   In other words, if someone colluded with others to defraud the United States, then they have committed a federal crime.
   
   What does "defraud the United States" actually mean?
   
   The DoJ has a guide:
   
   "In summary, those activities which courts have held defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 affect the government in at least one of three ways:
   
   1. They cheat the government out of money or property;
   2. They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or
   3. They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality."(3)
   
   Trump wasn't a "public official" at the time he may have (or known about) collusion with the agents of foreign governments though. Does the law still apply?
   
   "(a) For the purpose of this section . . . the term 'person who has been selected to be a public official' means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed;"(4)
   
   So this law is applicable to anyone who is a public official or who has been nominated to be a public official. Therefore this law is applicable to everything Trump did from the moment he became the GOP presidential nominee, and everything he has done in office since.
   
   If anyone sees Mr. Guliani, please be sure to tell him.
   
   (1)(4) https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/30/trump-l … crime.html
   (2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201
   (3) https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-res … defraud-us

   replyreport
   1. 74

      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      "1. They cheat the government out of money or property;
      2. They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or
      3. They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality."
      
      Which one of these does "collusion" (meaning collusion to fix an election, not investigation of a business opportunity for personal gain) apply to?  It doesn't cheat the government of money, it doesn't obstruct legitimate government activity and it doesn't make wrongful use of government instrumentality. 
      
      I think you're on the wrong tack; there are more specific rules against collusion that might apply.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         Don Wposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Robert Mueller can tell you.
         
         The Special Counsel has used this line of reasoning in existing indictments, e.g. against the Russian internet research agency. That indictment begins with:
         
         "The United States of America, through its departments and agencies, regulates the activities of foreign individuals and entities in and affecting the United States in order to prevent, disclose, and counteract improper foreign influence on U.S. elections and on the U.S. political system"(1)
         
         In other words, preventing and disclosing improper foreign influence in elections is part of the government's lawful function.
         
         That serves as the bases of the indictment later on:
         
         "From in or around 2014 to the present . . . Defendants, together with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, knowingly and intentionally conspired to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of State in administering federal requirements for disclosure of foreign involvement in certain domestic activities"(2)
         
         In other words, Mueller is saying individuals defrauded the United States because they prevented the FEC, DoJ and State from carrying out their lawful functions.
         
         So I think it's evident the Special Counsel is applying the type of fraud listed in number 2, and can see how he would apply the same to Trump.
         
         If Trump . . .
         
         1) received and accepted information from a source connected to a foreign government
         2) entered a secret agreement to use that information to influence the election, without disclosing its origin
         
         . . . then he prevented the FEC, DoJ etc. from carrying out their lawful functions and therefore (by the standard outlined in the federal code and existing indictments from the Special Counsel) colluded to defraud the United States.
         
         That is very much a crime (and it has a maximum sentence of 15 years)(3).
         
         (1)(2) https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download
         (3) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201 (section B, subsection 4)

         replyreport
         1. 74

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            LOL  Personally I would find that quite a stretch; that posting crap information on FB "prevented the FEC, DoJ etc. from carrying out their lawful functions".  Not even providing true (or false) information to Trump about his competitors falls under that.  Not surprised if the Democrats andTrump haters take that stance, though.
            
            But the first one, note (1) is much more appropriate.  It's not about collusion per se but IS a law that may have been violated.  Of course, you'll have a very hard time convincing me that it isn't consistently and routinely violated in every major election - a single illegal alien, working for or giving information to a candidate, their staff or the media does that.

            replyreport
            1. 87

               Don Wposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               Defrauding the United States seems to be the line the Special Counsel is following though.
               
               E.g. it was alleged in Manafort's indictment that he:
               
               "knowingly and intentionally conspired to defraud the United States by impeding, impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful governmental functions of a government agency, namely the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury . . ."(1)
               
               That relates to failure to disclose foreign sources of money etc.
               
               It's notable the Special Counsel used "conspiracy to defraud" rather than election finance laws, even though there was an abundance of evidence for that. This suggests it's deliberate and part of a wider strategy.
               
               No idea which type of fraud is most applicable to Trump. Depends on what evidence the Special Counsel has been able to gather.
               
               Either way, "Colluding" to defraud the United States is definitely a crime under 18 U.S. Code § 201(2), in addition to the more well known "Conspiring" to defraud the United States under 18 U.S. Code § 371(3).
               
               (1) https://www.justice.gov/file/1007271/download
               (2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201
               (3) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

               replyreport
               1. 74

                  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Yeah, I got that.  I just have a really hard time seeing fake FB posts as "defrauding" anyone at all.  Money exchanging hands is another thing, but even there I can't see buying foreign information (assuming that happened even though all evidence is that it did not) I don't see it as "fraud" of any kind.
                  
                  Courts, of course, may have a different opinion, and certainly the liberals frothing for anything to convict Trump of absolutely will.

                  replyreport