Trump: “Collusion Is Not A Crime”

160px-Official_Portrait_of_President_Donald_Trump_(cropped)President Donald Trump today weighed in, again, on the Russian investigation with a tweet declaring that “collusion is not a crime.”  He is correct. Indeed, I was raising this objection before the appointment of the Special Counsel. For months, commentators treated collusion as if it were a per se crime.  However, it is unwise for Trump to continue to weigh in on the investigation though he is clearly undeterred by complications created legally by his tweets in litigation (particularly in the immigration challenges).

 Trump went to Twitter to declare “Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)!”

This followed attacks on the alleged conflicts by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. I have repeatedly raised my concerns about those conflicts and explained why I felt Mueller was a bad choice by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. However, I do believe that Mueller will be a professional and independent investigation.  While Trump’s tweets play well with his base, many others see them as defensive and suspicious.

The point on collusion, moreover, will only take the President so far.  While collusion is not a crime, the act of colluding can run afoul of other crimes. This is particularly the case if there is a quid pro quo arrangement. I have seen no evidence of such collateral crimes but they are clearly being investigated. Moreover, there are false statements in the investigation that have already ensnared former Trump officials like Michael Flynn.  Finally, Mueller is expected to produce a report on Russian interference that will first go to Rosenstein and then presumably to Congress.  That report could be the basis for renewed calls for impeachment if serious misconduct is revealed (particularly if the House of Representatives switches control to the Democrats in November).

What is interesting is that “collusion is no crime” is a good legal point but a dreadful political point.  It is astonishing that Trump has been able to rally supporters around such a nuanced point of law as a political matter.

146 thoughts on “Trump: “Collusion Is Not A Crime””

  1. “I do believe that Mueller will be a professional and independent investigation. ”

    I wonder what makes Professor Turley come to that conclusion? Is it the fact that Mueller has less than arms-length connections with the FBI, Comey and other people? Is it that Mueller has appointed people to the committee that have stated that they would stop Trump? What has Professor Turley seen that is not obvious to many of the rest of us?

    1. Turley has to at least talk nicely or the Deep State will plant a boot.

      Insignificant nobodies like me are allowed to speak freely.

      I think Meuller is a failure as a prosecutor who by virtue of his past political investigation failures, has been elevated Peter Principle style to this august persecution.

      No offense Peter ya know what i mean

  2. TRUMP: I DIDN’T COLLUDE. BUT ‘IF’ I DID, COLLUSION ISN’T A CRIME

    If Trump thinks this double-talk will carry the day politically, I invite him to go for it.

    1. He never heard of you, never will, and does not care. But I invite you to keep posting boring long winded stuff here Peter. Well done

      1. Mr Kurtz

        “Just to be clear, as it gets more and more clear every day that the Trump team are guilty as hell– “collusion” refers to:

        Election Fraud
        Wire Fraud
        Bribery
        Bank Fraud
        Computer Crimes/Theft
        Computer Crimes/Espionage
        Extortion
        Identity Theft
        Obstruction of Justice
        Witness Tampering
        Perjury
        Making False Statements
        Conspiracy
        FARA
        RICO
        Money Laundering
        Tax Evasion”

        1. Bill Mc, Why don’t you write a criminal complaint that documents the crime committed along with the proof? Understand that your fantasies are not crimes until you can link the fantasy with actual lawbreaking.

    2. Double talk? You must have a very low IQ. Reading comprehension isn’t your thing.

      1. Ivan, please expand on that. How can conflicting signals sound sincere and logical?

  3. while it may not be a crime per se, if it involves bribery to silence, maybe it does cross the line into conspiracy..in the mean time, there still has been no release of tax returns, revealing of multiple business dealings, and let us not forget not the Helsinki statements..to me , they bordered on treason…as far as fake news, maybe we if we could just have one day without any of him & his tweets, it would be like a day with lots of sunshine….and then there’s Rudy..I never knew that the President was above the law……were it not for Daddy leaving him bucks , his only sterling moments were in the exclusive military academy daddy sent him to to get rid of him..and where he shined…his one claim to fame……..I really don’t believe we’ve ever had a President who acts like a 4th grade bully…to his supporters…he eventually will get to you…

    1. yawn yawn just whining. not crimes.

      daddy left him money and he did a hell of a lot with it. he’s a very impressive success as a businessman. you can crow about it all you like but it’s obvious

    2. i see quite a lot of sterling here. like way over a million ounces of it for starters

      https://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/#3abfbcf82899

      one million oz sterling silver is worth like $14 million dollars. I am not smart enough to calculate the mass equivalent in sterling silver of $3.1 billion but if you can do it I sure would be impressed!

    3. “Let us not forget not the Helsinki statements..to me , they bordered on treason”

      I guess this is your attempt at comedy, curmudgeon.

    4. Bribery? Where’s your evidence? Good luck. There’s no requirement to release the tax returns. Then you move soon to “Helsinki statements” and go straight to treason. You’re the one acting like a 4th grader.

  4. Collusion: A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.
    Collide: Bonnie and Clyde.
    Distortion: Fake news outlets.
    No news is good news.
    Burn the stores in Ferguson.
    Don’t call Trump a Connecticut Yankee. Call him a Met.
    I am all the way with LBJ. Those were the good ol days.

  5. ha. they aren’t going for a trial unless maybe manafort’s old money laundering allegations or whatever. the rest of it is all show trial posturing, indictments that will not go to trial and would not stand up to appeal. pure political bs. meuller ends his career with shame.

    1. I guess if a hot russian woman wanted to, it might be ok if she peed a little during sex.
      i mean this would just have to be part of a ya know bigger picture so to speak. its a little bizarre but not exactly the weirdest or most shameful thing people could do. not really even close. pretty weak “kompromat”

      more like a queasy store for the tabloids. british mi6 nonsense. that’s the “foreign government’ really tampering in our election we should investigate

      there is a sordid history of people being obsessed with the sexual interests of powerful political leaders. people still can’t get over hitler many many decades on.

      the English are specialists at manufacturing this kind of thing. they have very odd and active sexual imaginations.

      https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/the-peculiar-sex-life-of-adolf-hitler-offers-insight-into-the-dictators-gay-partners-391500.html

      the FBI is being spooked by the ghost of J Edgar with all this nonsense it seems to me

  6. Collusion is NOT a crime and it is now part of the record. Mueller is trolling the Twitter account and he has to deal with that. 😉

    1. I hope Trump keeps repeating this. As Professor Turley notes, it shall be a loser politically.

      1. Yeah. Trump is losing politically. Nice one. What color is the sky on your planet?

    2. PCS

      Conspiracy describes a secret plot that may or may not be illegal,COLLUSION is always an illegal or fraudulent plot.

      1. bill, i think you have that one backwards. conspiracy is defined in law, collusion is not

      2. bill mcwilliams – collusion itself is not a crime, although acts may be covered by other statutes covering criminal behavior. So far, Mueller has found nothing, nada. They had a LEGAL meeting at which LEGAL things went on. However, Hillary, who gave millions to a law firm who then gave money to Fusion GPS who then gave money to Christopher Steele to track down dirt on Trump in Russia by buying it from unnamed sources, does have a collusion problem.

        1. So glad to hear this update that Mueller has nothing from someone who is clearly in the know.

          1. no illegal activity

            btw do you guys understand that even foreigners have free speech protected by US constitution?

            they can even make lawful donations. yes what else would Citizens United imply?

            Think about that a little. read the link below which talks about limitations and workarounds.

            read this and understand that these “indictments” and “investigations” are a whole lot of nothing

            http://www.uky.edu/electionlaw/analysis/foreign-contributions-us-elections

            1. Mr Kurtz – Shirley you are not implying that illegal aliens have constitutional rights. 😉

          2. bill mcwilliams – what Trump has, and I have said this before, is a Special Counsel in search of a crime and he is the target.

        2. Haha. Let’s hear some more about BENGHAZI though. Perhaps some hearings are in order.

          this is to “Hannity keeps me up to date on the daily talking points” paulie

          1. Marky Mark Mark – you are the one who keeps banging on about Benghazi, not me. Are you getting your talking points from Hannity?

    3. Conspiring with a foreign enemy to influence an election in your favor is a crime. And that’s what Mueller is looking at, among other things. Collusion is not the issue.

      1. you guys are hilarious. when the saudis were giving hillary all that cash, were they just making eleemosynary donations?

        1. Mr Kurtz

          And when Trump asked Russia to find those 30,000 emails, was he just whipping up the trumpsters gathered to adore their dear Adolph wannabe?

          1. He whipped me up alright. I was like, “HELL YEAH!” Ha. It was funny. You guys lack good humor.

          2. bill mcwilliams – when Trump asked the Russians to find the other 30,000 emails I think he was both making a joke and was serious. No one in the crowd took him seriously, but he was hoping the Russians might think about it. If they already had them they could release them. If they knew where to get them, they could go after them. And then they would release them.

            I remember the story of a female student who was doing a science fair project and wanted an aerial photo of Area 51, so she wrote the US government. They, of course, would not give her one. So, she wrote to the Russian government. They gave her one with beautiful detail. 😉

        1. BUT WHAT ABOUT HILLAARRRRRYYYYYYYYYY!! Please post more of this type of material.

          this is to “when your guy’s an imbecilic traitor, always distract” kurtzie

      2. If he is looking at what you say henna he will find it by looking at Hillary Clinton.

      3. You are dumb. It is not a crime. Otherwise, you would name the statute you would charge him with. Dumbass.

        1. The media chose the words “collusion” because it only has three syllables and is easier to say than the twelve syllable mouthful below.

          923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

          P. S. It’s a shame you Trump Troopers don’t get brownie points for refuting red herring, because you’re all really good at it.

            1. No, but if she repeats rubbish over and over again, we can treat it as true.

  7. In the bigger picture, unleashing Mueller to investigate President Trump and company will go a long way toward reestablishing the rule of law. The American people will win either way.

    Right now it’s nearly impossible to remove someone from office. After Mueller is finished, his appointment and investigation will have established a precedent that will be used in future cases. If Mueller can be empowered to effectively troll the political/personal waters trying to catch a crime, then what will stop that fishing tool from being used against anyone?

    More popcorn please!

  8. Legal self gratification aside, Trump will get it for lying, his forte. Trump is the biggest liar ever to reside in Washington. Clinton wasn’t impeached for poking Monica but for lying/obstructing justice. Collusion may not be a crime. Being the most disgusting buffoon ever to come along may not be a crime. But surely Trump will get nailed for something. He is such a slippery scumbag that Mueller has to take his time. It will be like winning a war, WW1 and WW2 combine when Trump goes down. In the mean time Tabloid Turley and Rudy can legal speak away.

    1. issac – if lying were an issue, Harry Reid would have been kicked out of Congress.

      1. PCS

        Lying by the U.S. president is not an issue for Trumpsters. Their dear leader is as revered as Adolph was to Henry Ford.

        1. Henry Ford was indeed a great American. Yes I like Trump and Ford alike.

          Lying under oath would be an issue. Show me the perjury if you can.

      2. PCS

        You must have missed your nap today. Even for a Trumpster, diverting to someone else, not part of the topic, this is lame, lame, lame.

        All we can hope for is that Trump’s lies get attached to something more biggly. Trump’s lies alone won’t get it. Trump’s lies have set the new norm. He owns the bald face lie. Most other politicians lie, but they lie to weasel out of not getting something they promised done or squirming when they get caught. No one lies like Trump. Trump lies as if it were a boast, “I just make stuff up.”, as if he was up for an award, but mostly without even thinking about it. Trump the complete liar won’t get him impeached, he might even get reelected. But as his sloppiness is illustrating, in his lies as well as libido braggadocio, he might just have been or will be that sloppy about some transgression that will get him impeached. I’m counting on financial ties to Russia. At this point it is almost a certainty that Russia bailed out Trump through some banking gymnastics. Wheeler Dealers like Manafort getting exposed will be the first layer, then ???, then hopefully, The Donald.

    2. Impeached by the House, but the indictment failed in the Senate for obvious reasons. Clinton became more popular because of it.

      1. Hillary Clinton’s life of crime began 35 years ago with a $100K bribe from Tyson Chicken to the Arkansas Gov.’s wife.

        Isn’t it great that the Clinton’s have been criminals and politicians in the U.S. for 40 years?

        Corruption is a virtue in the mind’s of communists (i.e. democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists).

        The ends justify the means; right, comrade?

        1. But what about HILLLAAARRRYYYYYYY! Please post more of this type of material.

          this is to “when you’re guy’s a moronic traitor, it’s best just to make up shit about Hillary” georgie

  9. It’s hilarious that Trump says that collusion is not a crime and, at the same time, he claims Hillary Clinton and her team are guilty of the crime of collusion.

    Also, if you want to read someone who was a prosecutor and offers measured, informed, non-partisan commentary on this, check out Chuck Rosenberg.

    1. No, Hillary is guilty of mishandling classified information in order to frustrate FOIA requests. (And it’s a reasonable wager she was hiding pay-for-play scams).

      1. I’m referring to Trump’s constant claims that Clinton colluded with Russia. Thanks for playing.

          1. This is been completely debunked. The fact that you still dredge it up is proof that you have nothing but the most vacuous of claims.

        1. She provided the funds that were paid to Russians for the dossier. Hillary and the DNC she controlled had full control over the creation and dissemination of that document. No one debates that.

  10. What matters is whether Trump, his family, and members of his campaign team and administration are charged with crimes and what those crimes are. Mueller’s team will know the proper terminology.

    1. The investigation was formally opened on 31 July 2016 and the FBI was running informants prior to that. You’ve had two years. There’s just gotta be sumpin’, right?

      1. They have it. Let’s see if Manafort gets convicted (likely) and flips (unclear if he’s hoping for a pardon or if Trump will abandon him).

        1. “Flips”? He’s being tried in regard to his business dealings prior to 2015, in which Trump was uninvolved. The charges themselves are, btw, a daisy chain. In regard to the campaign, he was a consultant for two months and campaign director for three months, hired because of his experience as a convention floor manager.

          Just tap your ruby slippers and maybe Mueller and his Democratic donor crew will come up with something.

          1. Hired for his experience as a convention floor manager.

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            1. henna – actually Manafort was hired for his experience as a floor manager. Rubio (I think) was trying to steal Trump delegates on the second ballot. Trump needed someone who could stop that. Manafort put an end to it.

              1. So there was no one in the republican stable to do this other than a crooked, corrupt kremlin advocate and money launderer? Your argument is so weak and pathetic but it seems to be all you have, so enjoy it

          2. No, wrong. The allegations include activities continuing into 2017 while Manafort was defrauding a Chciago bank to lend him $16 million in “echange” for getting the bank’s president a job as Secretary of the Army.

            Mueller alleges:

            Between about 2006 and 2015 — the “first part of the scheme,” Mueller writes — Manafort and Gates generated tens of millions of dollars from their work for Ukrainian politicians and Ukraine’s government and tried to hide it from US authorities. They did so by saying the money came from “loans” from offshore corporate entities they controlled, and Manafort used his offshore accounts to buy real estate.
            But between about 2015 and at least January 2017, “the Ukraine income dwindled” because of the downfall of the country’s president. So during that period, which Mueller calls “the second part of the scheme,” Manafort and Gates “fraudulently secured more than twenty million dollars in loans,” the indictment alleges. They used the real estate Manafort had purchased with his offshore funds as collateral and lied about their company’s income and their existing debt to lenders.

    2. they will be able to cobble up scary indictments that were never meant to go to trial let alone stand up to appeal.

      this abuse of the special counsel law shows that it should just be repealed. it’s so deeply antidemocratic that it needs to go.

      or considering the democrapic changes that are projected, maybe we should keep it for future use. on second thought yeah, let’s keep it. what comes the next time a Dem gets elected will be fun

  11. What’s the professor’s ideal next career move? A black robe?

    1. A nice leftime appointment, replacing Kavanaugh on the DC Circuit.

      1. Hey, if fantasy helps you feel better.

        He already has a lifetime appointment, and a portable pension. Plus, he has income from his side gigs, which he’d have to give up were he on the bench, so the value of the raise he might get would be vitiated.

        1. DSS, the lack of knowledge seen in some of these people is astounding. Are they grownups? I wonder how they survive.

        1. tons of vacation, nobody looking over your shoulder, comparable pay.

          article III judges have a lot of power but they have to work hard, seriously

  12. “For months, commentators (i.e. CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PMSNBC et al.) treated collusion as if it were a per se crime,” Professor Turley

    writes, refusing to acknowledge extant “fake news” and the fact that the MSM creates “fake news” as they have in this instance.

    It’s factual. Please just say it Professor Turley – “fake news.”

  13. Wikipedia –

    “Jonathan Turley (born May 6, 1961) is an American lawyer, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism. He is currently a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School.”
    _______________________________________________________________________________

    I’m sensing legal not political acumen. I would appreciate Professor Turley’s legal assessment. According to Wiki, Professor Turley is not qualified to provide political assessments.

  14. There is still a debate about healing on the Sabbath day. Is it lawful or a crime to be punished by stoning to death?

    Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. The lawyers and Pharisees were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath day. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”

    Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.

    He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees and lawyers went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.

    1. St. Stephen:

      Really like that Biblical passage you quoted but my favorite one is this from Luke 18:

      10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican [tax collector].

      11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

      12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

      13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

      14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

      It’s always good advice that I taught my sons and the football and baseball players who played for me.

      1. Mespo…..wonderful passage….I’ll bet you were a fine coach. And a fair one.

            1. Cindy:
              The kids who I remember the most were the hellions who fought every attempt at team or personal discipline until, that is, they realized it was exactly what they wanted. At pregame, our kids always had jerseys in their pants and helmets under their right arms and “toed” the sideline. That may seem insignificant to many folks but I can tell you that small thing was essential.

              1. mespo….It absolutely was essential…..and I’m sure they will never forget that training….and are grateful for it!

  15. A good legal point? That’s not what other experts are saying. Others point out, rightly, that conspiracy by the Trump campaign is a crime and it is that and not collusion per se that is being investigated.

    1. “Conspiracy” is an anticipatory offense. There has to be a primary crime which they are conspiring to commit. Two years plus the preliminary running of informants, and nobody knows what it is.

      1. it only has to make sense if there are going to be trials and appeals

        we know from the example of indicting russians who will never be extradited,
        that they don’t really plan on having trials and appeals, thus

        it is a charade

    1. Semantics? That’s hilarious. I can think of a recent and very serious crime that was dismissed because the FBI said there was no intent. I believe that was not long after the AG urged Comey to refer to the investigation as a matter. Semantics for thee but not for me?

      1. You are off the mark. It was not a case of saying there was no crime because there was no purpose as opposed to no intent. It was simply, there was no intent.

        1. I’m trying to follow your word salad (I won’t dare call it semantics). Let me ask some straightforward questions:
          1. Was there a violation of the law?
          2. If so, was it done knowingly?
          3. In the case of national security, does that violation require proof of intent?

    2. semantics is the lawyer’s trade

      i hope you never need a lawyer hollywood but if you do, hope you get one good at “semantics”

  16. Commentators can say what they like but the Special Prosecutor is investigating crimes not what commentators say. Trump has glommed on the “collusion” song to avoid dealing with the real issues that include among other things, obstruction of justice, violation of federal elections law and, of course, the big T.

    1. The Big T is another source of word games. Giuliani and Trump will say there can be no big T because we are not at war.

    2. “You can’t handle the truth!”

      Real Crime:

      – Obama, willfully and deliberately, uses a pseudonymous e-mail account in an attempt to obstruct justice during conspiratorial e-mail exchanges with Hillary while using an illegal server, mishandling classified material and committing perjury by denying these and related facts.

      – Hillary uses and illegal server, mishandles classified material, conspires with Obama, obstructs justice and destroys evidence comprised of 30K e-mails, using Bleachbit and hammers on devices as delineated by the Director of the FBI, James Comey.

      – James Comey “FIXES” the Hillary and Obama investigations.
      _____

      “If Comey had indicted Hillary, Comey would have convicted Obama.”

      – National Review

      1. But what about HILLLARRRRYYYYYYY!! And the guy from Kenya.

        this is to “when it’s revealed that your guy is a buffoonish sellout to the Russians, it’s best to just make up shit about the nearest Democratic patriots” georgie

    3. There is no obstruction of justice, except in the minds of hopeful partisan Democrats, some of them shysters on Mueller’s payroll. There is no treason, except in the mind of really crude partisan Democrats. I’m sure there’s a shyster on the Justice Department payroll who fancies the NDA with Stormy Daniels is an election law violation. Didn’t work in regard to John Edwards, but, hey, you get the right judge and jury and the sky’s the limit.

Comments are closed.