Trump-appointed judge rules collusion itself is in fact a crime - Polidicks

https://sidebarsblog.com/collusion-crime-mueller-judge-decision/ Is collusion a crime? Since the beginning of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, allegations of “collusion” have dominated the debate. President Trump regularly claims there was “no collusion” with the Russians seeking to influence the 2016 presidential election. His attorneys and other supporters also have repeatedly argued that even if collusion took place, that would not be criminal. But last week, in a case brought by Mueller, a federal judge upheld the legal theory under which “collusion” may indeed be a crime. It’s true there is no criminal statute titled “collusion.” But as I’ve noted in several places (here and here, for example) the relevant crime is conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 371. Collusion refers to an agreement with others to achieve some improper end. In criminal law, we call that a conspiracy – a partnership in crime. And the breadth of the federal conspiracy statute makes it particularly well-suited for cases like Mueller’s probe of Russian interference with the election. On February 16, 2018, Mueller’s grand jury returned an eight-count indictment against thirteen Russian individuals and three Russian companies. It charges that the defendants conspired to influence the 2016 presidential election, primarily through social media. When the indictment was handed down, it seemed likely that none of the defendants would ever see the inside of a courtroom. They are all in Russia and Putin is unlikely to cooperate in any efforts to extradite them. But somewhat surprisingly, one Russian company, Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, entered an appearance through its attorneys and began vigorously to fight the case. Concord first moved to have the case thrown out on the grounds that Robert Mueller’s appointment was illegal and he had exceeded his authority. District Judge Dabney Friedrich (who was appointed by Trump, by the way) denied that motion. Concord appealed the ruling by joining the appeal of Roger Stone associate Andrew Miller, who is also challenging Mueller’s authority. That case was argued before the D.C. Circuit on November 8 and a decision is pending. Concord then filed a motion to dismiss the conspiracy count, the only count in which it is charged. The motion amounted to a broad attack on the legal theory behind a conspiracy to defraud the United States. Concord’s primary argument was that the indictment does not identify the particular DOJ or FEC regulations that Concord supposedly violated. It claimed prosecutors could not simply charge it with interfering with the functions of these agencies without pointing to specific violations, because “there is no such crime as interfering with an election.” In addition to identifying the relevant rules and regulations with particularity, Concord argued, the government was required to prove that Concord acted willfully: that it knew about those rules and knew it was illegal to violate them. In a ruling on November 15, Judge Friedrich rejected Concord’s arguments. She held it is well-established that conduct may violate section 371 without proof that it also violated any other statute or regulation. The crime is the violation of section 371 itself – no other violation is required. As long as the government proves the defendants conspired to defeat lawful government functions through deceitful or dishonest conduct, that is sufficient. This court ruling should drive another nail in the coffin of the argument that collusion is not a crime. It clearly can be, and the crime is conspiracy – even if no other independent criminal violations are identified. Mueller’s use of that theory in his Russian social media indictment is a textbook example of a 371 conspiracy to defraud the U.S., and that theory has now been validated by the trial judge’s ruling.

In a ruling on November 15, Judge Friedrich rejected Concord’s arguments. She held it is well-established that conduct may violate section 371 without proof that it also violated any other statute or regulation. The crime is the violation of section 371 itself – no other violation is required. As long as the government proves the defendants conspired to defeat lawful government functions through deceitful or dishonest conduct, that is sufficient. Hey look, conspiring to break the law is a crime in of itself! Weird how fox news never mentions this especially since they cover all the terrorists who are charged with conspiring to commit an act of terror.

Trump's iPhone probably has "how do I fire a judge I appointed" in its search history now. Again.

Articles like these make me wonder how many Trump approved people put up a facade to get into positions but still uphold the law when it comes down to it. Sort of like a reverse "Deeply disturbed" GOP congressman

"But there was no collusion!"

What's the next step in the narcissist's playbook after "collusion is not a crime"?

Obviously that the crime should not be a crime and is only a crime due to partisan tribal rivalry combined with saltiness over Hillary losing the election. If the law tells Trump he's wrong, Trump tells the law it's wrong.

"crime is now legal"

"Everyone colludes" "I had to collude to stop Hillary" "Hillary colluded"

https://youtu.be/dMt8qCl5fPk

There was no collusion Even if there was, collusion is not a crime Even if it is, Trump wasn't involved Even he was, you can't indict the president Even if you can, we'll gladly sell out our country to foriegn powers to own the libs.

"Asking about piss tapes is now grounds for execution"

so far his judges that have been confirmed have had the ABA approval, the ones that have been total keks have not been able to pass the senate but with Grassley out and Graham in as the ultimate decider of whether a judge gets to the senate floor who knows what 2019 looks like.

Why would actual moronic and unfit judges even benefit the GOP anyway.

Look no further than the 3 conservative justices that always vote GOP and gave Trump a win on what was a totally rediculous travel ban that should have been tossed for its obvious contempt of the court's previous rulings.

Those justices are actually intelligent. But like when Trump nominated that guy to be a district judge in Alabama who failed Senate questions miserably, I don't see why Trump would even nominate retards like that.

Again, it doesn't matter. The point is that they won't be liberal and they will very likely never be challenged for being incompitent as the judicial branch doesn't have a whole lot of avenues for removing judges.