Jump to content

Edman85

MotownSports Fan
  • Content Count

    18,099
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Edman85 last won the day on March 10

Edman85 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

409 Excellent

About Edman85

  • Rank
    MotownSports Fan
  • Birthday 06/05/1985

Converted

  • Location
    Away from Stalkers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I thought he was fully divested from those businesses, but they both sue at exactly the same time?
  2. And is redirecting funds from fighting terrorism to his little southern border distraction.
  3. I would like to go back to Gehringer's point for one more thing, now that you brought up statistics. When I was in school, we did just that in statistics. It was sprinkled in throughout all my engineering courses instead of delivered as a math course.
  4. I remember my calculus classes being particularly practical. Most of them were of the "for engineers" bent, so we were separated from the math majors. Once things got into linear algebra and DifEQ/Laplace Transforms, the practicality in the math courses went away and we would have been better off tackling it as you suggested.
  5. He should just say migrants should be shot dead upon entry. Now THAT is decorum.
  6. I want to clarify because this didn't show up in Urban Dictionary like I thought. Often when somebody at work doesn't read instructions and asks a questions, the line is RTFI, read the f'ing instructions. This is a play on that, only with report instead of instructions.
  7. She is a Senator. That has as much weight as you and me calling for it for two years.
  8. You are wrong. He could, but there is a standing OLC opinion, that he goes into painstaking detail weighing, that the current President can't be indicted. I hope when this nightmare is over, it is codified that he can.
  9. As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of "collusion," but through the lens of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" appears in the Acting Attorney General's August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law, see, e.g., Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 227 (1993). But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal Jaw. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S .C. § 371. See Black's Law Dictionary 321 (10th ed. 20 14) (collusion is "[a]n agreement to defraud another or to do or obtain something forbidden by law"); 1 Alexander Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary 311 (1871) ("An agreement between two or more persons to defraud another by the forms of law, or to employ such forms as means of accomplishing some unlawful obj ect."); 1 Bouvier 's Law Dictionary 352 ( 1897) ("An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law."). For that reason, this Office's focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term "collusion." The Office considered in particular whether contacts between Trump Campaign officials and Russ ia-linked individuals could trigger liability for the crime of conspiracy-either under statutes that have their own conspiracy language (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1951(a)), or under the general conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 371). The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in Volume I, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law- including foreign-Influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either under a specific statute or under Section 371 's offenses clause.
  10. Experimenting with using Google Docs to make the report searchable...
  11. Because they took Trump's bait in his no collusion talk.
  12. Where in the US Code is collusion called out as a crime? I'll wait.
  13. Barr said there was no collusion, but that was the precise moment where it was confirmed he was acting in a partisan matter unbefitting of an Attorney General.
×
×
  • Create New...