As pointed out, collusion is kind of a vague thing. Is it illegal for Hillary to pay a foreign for oppo? Not unless she's procuring him to commit some kind of crime. The crimes Trump's collusion suggest are either that the Russian government (or some other Russians) provided illegal support for his campaign in coordination with him or that he was involved in a criminal conspiracy to hack people's emails. If you pay the foreigner to help you, they aren't providing an in-kind campaign contribution, and if you're not asking them to violate the law, it's not a criminal conspiracy.

Pretty sure Mueller and his people have a good sense of the end game they are going for and we're not really in a position to question their tactics. Earlier I said I would prefer they issue a subpoena for testimony and let him fight it. That would be terrible optics for Trump.

Maybe Mueller was trying to avoid a subpoena out of deference to the office, but it's available if they want to use it. I mean they arranged for three simultaneous no-knock warrants on the president's personal lawyer. Pretty sure they are not going to be stymied by Trump's unwillingness to sit for a voluntary interview.

It's seemingly impossible to cancel once they start charging you, though.

Seems to be a catch 22 here because if Steele didn't talk to any of his sources in Russia the dossier would be discounted as worse than hearsay, but if he does talk to his sources then it's "collusion".

You're being disingenuous or have trouble reading. Hilary's campaign hired Fusion GPS who in turn hired Steele. Her campaign had no involvement in "paying a former spy" as you keep saying.

Donald Trump didn't hire a firm like Fusion GPS, he instead asked the Russians to release illegally obtained emails about Hilary on live tv. If Donald Trump hired Fusion GPS to get political opposition research on Hilary no one would be making a fuss about it because you can get opposition research on your opponent.

https://nypost.com/2018/04/12/comey-...ssure-melania/

IT’S REAL

I do not think that what Hillary did is illegal. The finer details of if the specific actions Trump took fit under the definition of collusion, I do not know. However, I do not see a great moral divide between the actions of Hillary or Trump, which I am assuming most of the forum thinks there is a great divide. I believe this divide is mostly due to "my team vs. their team" thinking. I think coordinating with foreign governments (or members of that government) for dirt, which I am assuming both did here, are morally wrong, but likely not legally wrong. We should not vote people into power who play these games, certainly, but I do not think we are looking at a slam dunk impeachment here like most would believe (withholding final judgement for the Mueller investigation, which I think is right kind of investigation to go about this).

Aww, you gave the game up

Trump asking Russians to release emails in a speech is clearly part of his circus clown showmanship act, let's not act like it was some sort of real coordination between the two parties. The link of Hillary -> Fusion -> Steele seems to be the same sort of separation that I've seen from Trump -> Associates -> Russians. I strongly disagree with your last sentence -- Maddow and 2p2 Politics would absolutely flip their **** over this scenario being flipped.

The only way you can think this is if you can't read.

My understanding of DOJ ethics is that they won't subpoena someone who plans to take the 5th.

omg

The June 3, 2016, email sent to Donald Trump Jr. could hardly have been more explicit: One of his father’s former Russian business partners had been contacted by a senior Russian government official and was offering to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

Two months later...

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said during a news conference here in an apparent reference to Mrs. Clinton’s deleted emails. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

What's the over/under on the pee tape being released?

I mean you can keep assuming all you want but just because you assume doesn't make it true. Also there are many other things that should be slam dunk impeachment cases against Trump. Like I'm not sure if you're aware but impeachment doesn't happen in a court of law, it is political.

Here's a write up on collusion and when it might possibly become a crime

http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/...becomes-crime/

Also the link between Hillary and Steele is not the same separation as Trump and Russia because from everything else going on there is concern that what Russia did to help Trump caused Trump to return the favor in some way. Fusion GPS was paid for their work. We are still unaware of what could've been promised to Russia in exchange for their help, if there was a promise of something at all but with everything that has happened that definitely seems like a possibility.

Well, I doubt they withhold a subpoena based on a hunch Trump may take the 5th. He would have to affirmatively declare it, which would be unprecedented for a POTUS and likely impeachable in itself.

The hillary Clinton campaign is the first thing you bolded

We are talking about trump, in person, meeting with Russians in his hotel, after the meeting on sanctions took place


Same thing shru

So
Where does it say Hillary paid the spy?

Hahahahahahahahaha

You are just wrong here. That’s it.

I mean, I'm sure there is a plan, but why the **** wouldn't he just subpoena Trump?

I'm going to choose to believe he's lying and definitely plans to interview Trump and is trying to avoid getting fired first.

And Ronan Farrow is not TMZ.

I think he's more likely to get impeached saying something stupid to the grand jury than by taking the 5th. If I'm wrong, his remaining lawyer may have concluded that.

The article's headline seems misleading to me. Doesn't seem clear at all based on the text of the article that Mueller has decided not to issue a subpoena if Trump refuses to be interviewed.

There is a massive moral divide between hiring a foreign citizen to do work for you and working with representatives of a foreign government. Morally, it also matters that said foreign citizen is from an ally and said foreign government is hostile.

So first of all, FusionGPS/Steele were originally hired by Republican opposition. Let's not pretend this originated from the DNC/Hillary. Secondly, nobody who hired FusionGPS and indirectly Steele did anything illegal or immoral. They were conducting opposition research through legal means. They hired a private firm and a private FORMER intelligence agent to conduct the opposition research. Steele worked Russian sources for information.

So, morally speaking, the people (GOP opponents, Clinton, Democrats) who hired FusionGPS and Steele paid them to do opposition research. The fact that foreigners provided that information does not matter.

In fact, it's totally legal for them to HIRE foreign nationals to do work on their campaign or for their campaign. It would actually be illegal to accept it for free, as it would constitute an illegal campaign contribution, which brings us to...


Clinton/Democrats/Trump GOP opponents did not coordinate with foreign governments, or with representatives of foreign governments. They did so with individuals, some of whom happened to be foreign citizens.

Accepting free assistance from a foreign national is an illegal campaign contribution, for starters. So if the Russians who helped the Trump campaign did so with the campaign's knowledge and/or at their behest, that was an illegal campaign contribution. (The contribution is free labor and/or information of value.)

If the Trump campaign coordinated with them, they were conspiring to commit the aforementioned illegal act, at a minimum.

If the Trump campaign promised them something in exchange (easing sanctions, for example, or changing policy toward Russia in Ukraine), that would be not only evidence of the above conspiracy but also an additional crime, I believe (IANAL). This is also where the benefits to the Russian government come in and where the illegality AND immorality escalate.

If Trump and/or people on his campaign were also receiving personal benefits, that's just further evidence of all of the above and likely an additional count of something or other, perhaps bribery or treason (again, IANAL).