On 2/4/2018 12:58 AM, Dutch wrote:
> On 2/4/2018 12:27 AM, Clave wrote:
>> On 2/4/2018 12:08 AM, Dutch wrote:
>>> On 2/3/2018 11:53 PM, Clave wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/2018 11:32 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>>> On 2/3/2018 10:00 PM, Clave wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/3/2018 9:19 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/3/2018 7:50 PM, Clave wrote:
>>>>>>>>> And yes, I am aware that "collusion" per se, in and of itself 
>>>>>>>>> is not a crime.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The obstruction *IS* the collusion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't follow. The Trump campaign colluded with Russia, i.e. 
>>>>>>> *illegally* exchanged promises to drop sanctions in exchange for 
>>>>>>> the release of *illegally obtained* damaging information about 
>>>>>>> Clinton, then subsequently the Trumpsters have, in a variety of 
>>>>>>> ways, worked to *illegally* obstruct the investigation into it. 
>>>>>>> There appears to me to be separate and independent sets of crimes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no such crime as "collusion."
>>>>>
>>>>> I know, I didn't call it a crime.
>>>>
>>>> What does "illegally" mean to you then?
>>>
>>> The illegality is not simply colluding with a foreign power, but how 
>>> they did it.
>>
>> *boggle*
>>
> 
> It's not complicated. It's not illegal to collude to obtain information 
> on your opponent. If however you collude to get information that you 
> know was obtained as the result of a crime that makes you an accessory 
> to that crime. And, if in the process of colluding you make an illegal 
> promise then you are committing a crime.

Goshthanks, I didn't know any of that obvious stuff.

Even though I said as much myself a post or two ago.

We're done here.  Again.