The Shapeshifters of Bullshitistan - 16

The Accused: The Only Member to man a fort.

Today we consider the member Rudy Poot, an ardent supporter of the ideology of Pootie Poot.

Yes, on the eve of the federal criminal trial of the first member of The Shape Shifters of Bullshitistan (The Shapeshifters of Bullshitistan, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) we consider the statement recently made by Rudy Poot: "collusion is not a crime."

Rudy Poot is defending all of The Accused with unheard of sayings like that (sayings which please The Don).

The Accused will be brought to court from a jail to hear no charges of collusion, because as Dredd Blog pointed out some time ago, there is no such crime in United States criminal statutes:

Over a half a decade ago I pointed out one bad habit of the mass media (Dept. of Justice Conspiracy Theories).

The McTell News (Blind Willie McTell News, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) has an aversion to "conspiracy theory" (On The Origin of "Conspiracy Theory", 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

One reason for that aversion is that some of the media who were CIA agents or assets wanted "conspiracy theory" to be relegated to the realm of evil thoughts (Mocking America, 2, 3, 4).

Instead, the McTell News like to make things up, like "collusion," their doublespeak word for the proper word "conspiracy."

Thus, they have. for months and months now, echoed daily the word "collusion" (which cannot be found in the criminal laws of the United States).

They have been caught in their own tongue twisting machinations.

The proper word is not "collusion," rather it is "conspiracy," as clearly shown in the criminal laws of The United States of America:

"If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

(18 USC § 371, emphasis added, cf DOJ on conspiracy theory). This is a general conspiracy statute ("If two or more persons conspire ... to commit any offense against the United States ... in any manner or for any purpose").

(Dept. of Justice Conspiracy Theories - 2). The word 'collusion' does not appear in the criminal law of conspiracy.

(Dept. of Justice Conspiracy Theories - 3). The U.S. Department of Justice has never charged anyone with the "crime of collusion" for the simple reason that no such criminal statute exists.

However, as pointed out in the text of reality, criminal conspiracy law does exist:

Consider how a law school textbook might introduce the elements of traditional conspiracy law: Imagine that Joe and Sandra agree to rob a bank. From the moment of agreement, they can be found guilty of conspiracy even if they never commit the robbery (it’s called “inchoate liability”). Even if the bank goes out of business, they can still be liable for the conspiracy (“impossibility” is not a defense). Joe can be liable for other crimes that Sandra commits to further the conspiracy’s objective, like hot-wiring a getaway car (it’s called “Pinkerton” liability, after a 1946 Supreme Court case involving tax offenses). He can’t evade liability by staying home on the day of the robbery (a conspirator has to take an affirmative step to “withdraw”). And if the bank heist takes place, both Joe and Sandra can be charged with bank robbery and with the separate crime of conspiracy, each of which carries its own punishment (the crime of conspiracy doesn’t “merge” with the underlying crime). Why should conspiracy liability begin at the moment of “agreement,” before any crime is committed? Why can a conspirator be charged with both the inchoate offense of conspiracy and the robbery? Why should the law punish conspirators even if it’s impossible for them to commit the crime they planned? Why is withdrawal from a conspiracy so difficult?

(Conspiracy Theory, 112 Yale L.J. 1307 (2003), Preface,  emphasis added).  For those, such as Chris Matthews, TV lawyers Ari Melber & Jonathan Turley, and Nicolle Wallace, who think that collusion is a crime, go out and arrest someone and put them in jail for it. 

(Save up a lot of money first, because the lawsuit against you for false arrest will cost more than you think.)

UPDATE 8/1/18: Hat tip to Joe Scarborough (Morning Joe) for saying "... they were conspiring with Russia ... not colluding ... let's call it conspiracy" as it should be.

Conspiracy, among others, is the crime Mr. Manafort was charged with: "COUNT ONE ... Conspiracy against the United States" (https://www.cnn.com/.../indictment-manafort-gates/index.html).

So, tomorrow when the trial is scheduled to begin you will hear the word "collusion" used by the media who have been afraid to use the word "conspiracy" because their uncle at thanksgiving told them it was a no-no.

The fact that Rudy Poot knows that collusion is not a crime does not make Rudy Poot a good lawyer, because for one thing he too was caught up in the colludosphere along with the media.

Another reason that Rudy Poot is not lawyerly is that he trembles at the thought of entering a professional federal courtroom to deal with the reality produced by facts.

But, for some reason The Accused (The Don's Campaign Manager) who goes to trial tomorrow has enough "something" to go to trial under circumstances that caused a military general and several other members to cave in and plead guilty rather than face the music.

What is that something?

More than likely it is the same something deep within The Don: an overpowering fear of Pootie Poot.

"Better Red than dead" is the mantra produced by that fear.

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.