Donald Trump Presidency-Day One

[buttslinger]

Jah, after Trump and Kelly murder Mueller and revoke certain Constitutional Regulations, we can invade Canada and cop those cheap pharmaceuticals they have up there. Then Invade south to the Panama Canal, so we could use the moat instead of the wall. We could then use the wall to build cheap washers and dryers, while Mexican Laborers toiled up Norte for rock bottom salaries.
It looks like in the Senate anyway, they're actually working together. I had an Asshole Boss once, after everybody figured out their voice meant nothing, things settled down to a low simmer and things actually rolled along pretty well. I did the books back then and didn't get mad, I got even. Seig Heil!!!
Actual Respect for Authority is hard work and very stressful. Phony Respect works just as well with less static.

[Stavros]

Trump wants a military parade...
http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/06/politi...ump/index.html

'No women, no queers and definitely, definitely no Blacks, it's my parade and my army'.

Just like his Generals in 1919, which rich article I offer as part of Black History Month in the USA.

The U.S. Army banned black American troops from participating in the great victory parade staged by Allied soldiers in Paris on Bastille Day, 1919, even though black French and British troops took part. Several black GIs were executed without trial that year, prompting a congressional investigation. When soldiers of the 367th Regiment prepared to sail for home on the USS Virginia, the captain had them removed on the grounds that no blacks had ever traveled on an American battleship.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv.../parisnoir.htm

[buttslinger]

Blacks didn't fight side by side with whites until the Korean War, and only then because they simply didn't have enough white troops, everyone was sick of War.
When I was in College they had a lottery for the Draft, if you were into "takin' it to the streets" those were the Days. I remember in DC I looked beside me at a demonstration and Allen Ginsberg was standing there!

[sukumvit boy]

The Trump Goose Step :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/o...l_popns&wpmm=1

[sukumvit boy]

[buttslinger]

Hey, wasn't this supposed to be INFRASTRUCTURE WEEK??
ATTN: USS Trump, Enemy sub surfacing on Starboard side!
Underseaboaten Mueller!
While the Olympics and Mass Shooting grab the attention of most Americans, Mueller has been interviewing Bannon, flipping Gates, and now releasing a "Statement Indictment" against Russian Interference in our Election. Russians with Names. Maybe if Democrats and Republicans can come up with a common enemy, we can get our groove back. Will Republicans cheer or squirm?
When I was a kid, the Russians were a bigger enemy than they are now, but I'd say we're not as well off now as we were then, our competitors have caught up. Our National Debt is killing us. Sucking all the air out of the room. Time for some good old fashioned American Pay-Back!!!!

[broncofan]

Lost in the discussion of what happened during the last election is what the legal consequences are of interfering with an election. The indictments handed down by Mueller yesterday give us a sense of some of the crimes that were committed during the election though not all of them. The way an American would be connected to these crimes if we get that far is by conspirator liability. We keep hearing the word "collusion" and it might be a relevant word in some contexts but the way liability attaches in criminal law is by being a conspirator to some other crime. The definition of conspiracy is that two or more people agree to commit an illegal act and take one overt step towards its commission. It does not even require the act's completion in order for liability to attach. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy

Anyhow, for those who are interested, here are some of the crimes included in Mueller's indictments: https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimina...acy-defraud-us , https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1344 , https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028A , https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028

Here is the indictment which contains the facts it's based upon: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43091945

But it will be interesting to see who was involved in some way and knew of these aims. It you know of the plan and do anything to further it (even if your actions do not complete the crime) then you have conspirator liability. We haven't even gotten to the hacks yet, which will probably involve a bunch of other statutes, all with the potential for conspirator liability.

[buttslinger]

... it will be interesting to see...

Ya Think???

[Stavros]

Lost in the discussion of what happened during the last election is what the legal consequences are of interfering with an election. The indictments handed down by Mueller yesterday give us a sense of some of the crimes that were committed during the election though not all of them. The way an American would be connected to these crimes if we get that far is by conspirator liability. We keep hearing the word "collusion" and it might be a relevant word in some contexts but the way liability attaches in criminal law is by being a conspirator to some other crime. The definition of conspiracy is that two or more people agree to commit an illegal act and take one overt step towards its commission. It does not even require the act's completion in order for liability to attach. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy

Anyhow, for those who are interested, here are some of the crimes included in Mueller's indictments: https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimina...acy-defraud-us , https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1344 , https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028A , https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028

Here is the indictment which contains the facts it's based upon: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43091945

But it will be interesting to see who was involved in some way and knew of these aims. It you know of the plan and do anything to further it (even if your actions do not complete the crime) then you have conspirator liability. We haven't even gotten to the hacks yet, which will probably involve a bunch of other statutes, all with the potential for conspirator liability.

An intriguing point about conspiracy in US law. If certain people related to the Presidential candidate were aware that the Russians has 'dirt' on Hillary Clinton and not only wanted to see it but may have used it -or not used it-, is this not a conspiracy to act with a foreign government against an American running for public office? I have always wondered how someone could twice in one day appeal to a foreign government for help to attack his American rival and get away with it. So far. And all this before we get to the money trail...

[broncofan]

An intriguing point about conspiracy in US law. If certain people related to the Presidential candidate were aware that the Russians has 'dirt' on Hillary Clinton and not only wanted to see it but may have used it -or not used it-, is this not a conspiracy to act with a foreign government against an American running for public office? I have always wondered how someone could twice in one day appeal to a foreign government for help to attack his American rival and get away with it. So far. And all this before we get to the money trail...

Assuming that what you say violates all sorts of election law statutes and even more serious national security law statutes the liability could definitely be imputed to anyone who knew the plan, agreed with it and offered assistance to the primary actors. From a criminal law standpoint I don't think mere knowledge of any such plot could move up the chain and be imputed to someone who did not act since most jurisdictions (and probably federal law as well) require one overt act to be part of the conspiracy and consequently have derivative liable to the full extent of the co-conspirators' actions. But as you and others have said a number of times, many of these things are political wrongs that are just as serious when it comes to his fitness for office.

As we saw in the indictments, various Russians tried to set up organizations where they impersonated minorities in order to suppress their vote. Assuming this violates a number of fraud related statutes what is the least an American can do and be guilty of conspiracy? First, the American has to know what they're doing. Second, in some way agree, either explicitly or more likely by implication. And finally, in most jurisdictions an overt step in furtherance is required. Maybe helping to get a permit. Offering a tiny bit of i.t. advice. This small step makes them guilty not just of conspiracy to commit the crime, but through derivative liability also of the completed crime if their co-conspirator completes it.

In your exact example it really depends when they found about the crime, whichever statute it is. The way it avoids the difficulty of trying to charge them with the predicate crime is that it is a crime where the mens rea predominates and only a little bit of action is required for a lot of liability. But you do have to know in advance.