Stormy Weather...

[Schewe]

It's a gamble, and not a very well thought out one.  They really need a Hail Mary to pull this off.

Interesting you mention this because back in the early 1970's suing the Committee to Elect the President is exactly what the Democrats did over the Watergate break in...and don't ya know that the day Nixon left Washington in disgrace, the Committee for the Reelection of the President paid the DNC $775,000 to settle that lawsuit.

So, it seems, silly as you may think this might be, there is a pretty compelling legal precedent for suing...(and no, I didn't remember but Rachel Maddow just had it on her show so I looked it up).

 

[Schewe]

Oooooh...it get even better.

The judge that has been assigned to the current Democratic lawsuit is...Hon. John G. Koeltl...who served as an assistant special prosecutor in the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in the DOJ from 1973-1974.

Things that make you go hum...

History does tend to repeat itself.

[Jeremy Roussak]

https://politics.theonion.com/dnc-files-lawsuit-alleging-nation-should-never-ever-st-1825424101

Jeremy

[LesPalenik]

Nice portrait of Tom Perez.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Nice portrait of Tom Perez.

I’ve always found it totally perplexing that Democrats thought that the best strategy to respond to the electoral victory of someone who, in their view, hates Mexicans and Muslims, and has half the country apparently agreeing, is to elect a... Mexican and a Muslim to lead the party to their desired electoral victory!?

[Robert Roaldi]

I’ve always found it totally perplexing that Democrats thought that the best strategy to respond to the electoral victory of someone who, in their view, hates Mexicans and Muslims, and has half the country apparently agreeing, is to elect a... Mexican and a Muslim to lead the party to their desired electoral victory!?

Funny, I thought they were Americans.

[JoeKitchen]

Uh, healthcare? While the mandate bit the dust, the rest remains because, well, the Republicans couldn't bring themselves to repeal and replace.

And tell me again about that spending bill Trump signed? Instead of a CR, Congress actually passed a bipartisan spending bill (yeah, shocked me too).

Pot, meet kettle...

You got me on Healthcare, (edit) but that was not really a win for the Dems.  More like a failure on the part of the Reps, which is not the same thing. 

The spending bill though, I see that as a win win for all around. 

[JoeKitchen]

Interesting you mention this because back in the early 1970's suing the Committee to Elect the President is exactly what the Democrats did over the Watergate break in...and don't ya know that the day Nixon left Washington in disgrace, the Committee for the Reelection of the President paid the DNC $775,000 to settle that lawsuit.

So, it seems, silly as you may think this might be, there is a pretty compelling legal precedent for suing...(and no, I didn't remember but Rachel Maddow just had it on her show so I looked it up).

 

So? 

Just because putting all on black won before does not mean it will again.  Plus, at the time, that suit did not open already closed wounds of the Dems.  It was not self wounding; this one is. 

I just don't see the logic here.  As I said before, there is no evidence of collusion as it stand now; this suit does more harm to the Dems then Trump by keeping past wrongs of the DNC in the lime light. 

If you want, you can keep on looking at this through rose colored glasses, but that did not work in 2016 either. 

The only thing I see from the Dems are, "Trump is bad, we are better, don't dare ask why, just trust us!"  Such a winning message. 

[JoeKitchen]

https://politics.theonion.com/dnc-files-lawsuit-alleging-nation-should-never-ever-st-1825424101

Jeremy

This is great. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Does anyone know the legal meaning of "collusion"? Does it require active participation in an act or is it enough to benefit from the actions of others?

[JoeKitchen]

Does anyone know the legal meaning of "collusion"? Does it require active participation in an act or is it enough to benefit from the actions of others?

I'm pretty sure the former.  Even if it was made the latter, I'm fairly certain the Supreme Court would over turn it. 

If half of the architectural photographers in N. America died this weekend, that would have a quick and substantial positive impact on my business come Monday.  However, that alone would not make me guilty of any wrong doing. 

[Rand47]

To be fair, although you're correct about JFK and FDR, I don't think you could say that Clinton's affair was exactly kept secret.

Yeah, darn it.  I guess the Oval Office as the venue made that a little tough.  When my wife made the observation about his sexual activity not having anything to do with his “job as President,” I observed that I doubt seriously she would have seen it that way if I, as the fire chief of my town, was having similar oral festivities in my office with a female fire cadet.  That ended the conversation somewhat abruptly.

Rand

[Rob C]

Yeah, darn it.  I guess the Oval Office as the venue made that a little tough.  When my wife made the observation about his sexual activity not having anything to do with his “job as President,” I observed that I doubt seriously she would have seen it that way if I, as the fire chief of my town, was having similar oral festivities in my office with a female fire cadet.  That ended the conversation somewhat abruptly.

Rand

You may have been suggesting more than you imagined: could you really offer to compete with all those hoses lying all over the place, or neatly on shiny red engines? I hope they were red engines.

I've often wondered about Monica's motivation. Years later, I am no further forward on that topic, not that it is always on my mind, or anything.

From this and that, I gather that a blow is quite the thing in the US, where teens are more likely to do that than the other. As with swearing, it may be a cultural difference in acceptability. AFAIK, in Britain, you are much more likely to have to visit a professional purveyor of pleasures for one of those, than expect and receive it in the marital bed or on a date.

Life's rich tapestry, I suppose.

(Perhaps this might sit better in the Etiquette thread?

[James Clark]

Does anyone know the legal meaning of "collusion"? Does it require active participation in an act or is it enough to benefit from the actions of others?

As I understand it, “collision” itself isn’t even the crime in isolation, whether Trump new about, participated in it or was wholly ignorant on it (as he seems to be on so many things).

Rather, it’s a catch-all term for the possibility that the campaign, with or without his knowledge, did other things that are illegal (campaign finance violations in that you can’t accept donations from foreign entities, or amounts above a certain number etc) or actively solicited or coordinated illegal activity (release of hacked emails etc). 

In short, if Russia simply manipulated the election to screw with the USA and trump was the unwitting beneficiary, then there’s likely no reason to prosecute.  It’s not illegal to have a foreign power accidentally help you out.

[Chris Kern]

Does anyone know the legal meaning of "collusion"?

"Collusion" has no meaning in U.S. federal law.  It's a catch-all term used by the press and President Trump to refer to whether persons associated with the 2016 Trump campaign participated in the efforts by the Russian government to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

The federal crimes that the special counsel reportedly is investigating include "active measures" espionage by Russia and possibly other governments (i.e., attempts to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election); various other computer crimes committed in the course of attempts to influence the election (e.g., identity theft); making illegal campaign contributions (those that exceeded the statutory maxima or were funded by foreign donors); obstruction of justice; making false statements to federal agents (e.g., investigators from the FBI); conspiracy to commit these crimes—and, apparently, a number of personal financial crimes and attempts to evade paying U.S. taxes that the investigators turned up in the course of pursuing the primary objectives of their inquiry, some of which come within the purview of the special counsel and others which have been referred to the U.S. attorneys' offices with jurisdiction over them.

Some of these areas of inquiry are known from the guilty pleas the special counsel has already obtained from targets of these investigations, some from public court filings by the special counsel, and some from "leaks" to the press that appear to have originated with lawyers for various defendants or witnesses.  This last group of sources obviously may be self-interested in the information they make public, and their revelations should be considered with some skepticism since it is all but impossible to verify them; in my nearly 50 years in Washington, some of them spent as a news reporter and analyst (I'm also a lawyer), I don't think there has ever been a federal investigation whose existence was known to the public that has been conducted in such secrecy.  Robert Mueller really has kept the lid on.

So far, the only crimes that can reasonably be said to have been committed are those to which the defendants have pleaded guilty.  The special counsel has also filed some other charges which are being contested, and which will have to be resolved in court or perhaps by future guilty pleas.  However, the court warrants that have been issued to the special counsel to conduct searches and seizures of information—some of them "no-knock" warrants where the subject or the subject's lawyer was not given notice of the search prior to its initiation, a rarity in white-collar crime investigations—strongly suggests that there will be additional charges to follow.

[James Clark]

"Collusion" has no meaning in U.S. federal law.  It's a catch-all term used by the press and President Trump to refer to whether persons associated with the 2016 Trump campaign participated in the efforts by the Russian government to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

The federal crimes that the special counsel reportedly is investigating include "active measures" espionage by Russia and possibly other governments (i.e., attempts to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election); various other computer crimes committed in the course of attempts to influence the election (e.g., identity theft); making illegal campaign contributions (those that exceeded the statutory maxima or were funded by foreign donors); obstruction of justice; making false statements to federal agents (e.g., investigators from the FBI); conspiracy to commit these crimes—and, apparently, a number of personal financial crimes and attempts to evade paying U.S. taxes that the investigators turned up in the course of pursuing the primary objectives of their inquiry, some of which come within the purview of the special counsel and others which have been referred to the U.S. attorneys' offices with jurisdiction over them.

Some of these areas of inquiry are known from the guilty pleas the special counsel has already obtained from targets of these investigations, some from public court filings by the special counsel, and some from "leaks" to the press that appear to have originated with lawyers for various defendants or witnesses.  This last group of sources obviously may be self-interested in the information they make public, and their revelations should be considered with some skepticism since it is all but impossible to verify them; in my nearly 50 years in Washington, some of them spent as a news reporter and analyst (I'm also a lawyer), I don't think there has ever been a federal investigation whose existence was known to the public that has been conducted in such secrecy.  Robert Mueller really has kept the lid on.

So far, the only crimes that can reasonably be said to have been committed are those to which the defendants have pleaded guilty.  The special counsel has also filed some other charges which are being contested, and which will have to be resolved in court or perhaps by future guilty pleas.  However, the court warrants that have been issued to the special counsel to conduct searches and seizures of information—some of them "no-knock" warrants where the subject or the subject's lawyer was not given notice of the search prior to its initiation, a rarity in white-collar crime investigations—strongly suggests that there will be additional charges to follow.

You've explained so much better than I did . 

[Chris Kern]

You've explained so much better than I did .

Well, there was nothing wrong with what you wrote.  But I thought it would be useful to offer some specifics regarding what is known about the special counsel's investigation.

[James Clark]

Well, there was nothing wrong with what you wrote.  But I thought it would be useful to offer some specifics regarding what is known about the special counsel's investigation.

For sure.  I meant that honestly and as a compliment.

[Robert Roaldi]

I've often wondered about Monica's motivation. Years later, I am no further forward on that topic, not that it is always on my mind, or anything.

No need to look for complex motivations, I suspect. They probably just got horny for each other in the moment. That's how it usually happens.

[KLaban]

You may have been suggesting more than you imagined: could you really offer to compete with all those hoses lying all over the place, or neatly on shiny red engines? I hope they were red engines.

I've often wondered about Monica's motivation. Years later, I am no further forward on that topic, not that it is always on my mind, or anything.

From this and that, I gather that a blow is quite the thing in the US, where teens are more likely to do that than the other. As with swearing, it may be a cultural difference in acceptability. AFAIK, in Britain, you are much more likely to have to visit a professional purveyor of pleasures for one of those, than expect and receive it in the marital bed or on a date.

Life's rich tapestry, I suppose.

(Perhaps this might sit better in the Etiquette thread?

Rob, sounds like it's been quite a while since you've been in Britain.

;-)