The term “collusion” is not commonly used in lawbooks, but it is a term used to describe the agreement between two or more people to commit a crime, often illegal or fraudulent. In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime at some point in the future. In some countries, such as the US, the term “collusion” is used to address crimes like price fixing.
Conspiracy is an agreement to collaborate to commit a crime, even if they are not successful in committing that crime. Stanford law professor Robert Weisberg stated that every conspiracy is a form of collusion. The U.S. code mostly uses the term “collusion” in antitrust laws to address crimes like price fixing, but there are several specific laws on the books that could be used to define collusion.
The FBI’s report on former President Trump does not “exonerate” him, but it makes him look terrible. In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime at some time in the future. In response to the Justice Department’s argument to the court, the defendant was argued to have committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian entities.
In summary, the terms “collusion” and “conspiracy” are often used interchangeably, but they differ in their legal definitions and definitions. The Manafort trial has been a complex and contentious case, with various theories and interpretations surrounding the charges against the former president.
📹 Lawsplainer: There’s No Such Thing as Collusion (It’s Worse)
You hear often that there is no such thing as “collusion.” That’s true! You can look through the enter US code and not find a crime …
📹 ‘An Entire Spy Novel Of Corruption, Of Collusion, Of Conspiracy’ | Deadline | MSNBC
About: MSNBC is the premier destination for in-depth analysis of daily headlines, insightful political commentary and informed …
Absolutely love the vids that tie into the current events! It’s really hard to to find source on these legal issues with this administration. You do a fantastic job at breaking down the issues for someone like me, who knows little to nothing on the law! Keep these coming and I’ll continue to come back!! Thanks!!!
Could you maybe cover some of all the copyright strikes, that seems to flourish on youtube lately? Is it even legal for youtube to give all your ad revenue to someone else without youtube checking first whetever their claim have any merit? All the big companies youtube websites are immune to copyright strikes, is this discrimination against small content creators? I would really like to get a real lawyers perspective on something that so many content creators on youtube feels so strongly about.
Objection: collusion may not be explicitly named in federal law, but collusion in business is indeed a valid legal violation covered by antitrust legislation. Collusion exists where different entities enter into agreements that result in denial of customer rights. Essentially they act as a single entity via their business arrangement and can engage in monopolistic practices like price manipulation. Though to be fair, any actual criminal charges in a collusion case would almost certainly be accompanied by a count or counts of conspiracy. And at any rate that’s not the arrangement in question with regard to Russia’s election tampering.
“Collusion is not a crime” Neither is incinerating a dead body. But if it’s a human body, you do it in your front yard, didn’t get permission from the government, and can’t explain who the dead guy was, expect jail time. Words like “Desecrating a corpse” “Tampering with evidence” and “Suspicion of murder” get thrown around, and they are crimes.
Would this be a good way to explain what could fall under a conspiracy? It is an example I have thought of for a while, but I don’t know if it is correct. Situation A: You and your friend decide to lift some booze from a liquor store. While your friend distracts the teller, you sneak to the freezer, and throw some beer in your bag. On the way out, your friend kills the teller. In that case you wouldn’t be guilty of murder, since your friend went so far off script Situation B: You and your friend decide to rob a liquor store at gun point. The plan isn’t to kill anyone, but your friend still ends up shooting the teller to get out. In that case you would be guilty of murder, since it was a highly likely out come.
Awesome breakdown of the law, and a great resource to send to people when they use tired arguments like “collusion is not a crime” or “you’re just a silly conspiracy theorist.” While they may be right on both accounts, that doesn’t invalidate the severity of the claims. Collusion is just an entry point to a much more significant crime, much in the same way we don’t have laws specifically against inflicting pain, but we do have laws against assault and murder. And while this may be a conspiracy theory, that’s because we’re looking at something that is actually a tangible conspiracy by definition of the law.
No objections or any of that. I’m no lawyer and I’m not a law student, but I love these articles. You explain things so clearly and concisely. I always take mental notes of the teaching moments in your articles. I used to watch them for entertainment (particularly your articles rating legal proceedings in TV and movies) but now I watch them for the what’s what on law and sometimes even current events. Keep doing what you do, brother. You’re making the world a smarter, and therefore better, place.
It’d be amazing if you discussed the recent lawsuits against the Trump administration about government workers who’re forced to work despite not being paid (and any promises of payment violating appropriations laws). A court has recently issued that they still must work, because they’re work is too vital. Is that a legitimate legal reason to essentially enslave people? Would they face criminal charges if they left for or sought other employment during the shutdown?
OBJECTION: Though I truly do not object! I find your articles interesting, informative and well presented. You have a knack for boiling down very complex subjects to a few illustrative points that give a layman an excellent cursory understanding. You have the sort of presentation one would (and should) expect of someone who speaks for a living. There are a lot (and boy do I mean a LOT) of legal commentary websites, but yours is one of the best by far! But you know what really catches my eye? Your tie. In particular, the knot you use. I was taught as a young lad that the Full Windsor was a “gentleman’s knot”, and I’ve never worn anything else. It pains me to see, even in formal settings, the prevalence of the Half Windsor or some similar knot. It makes me think “Why wear a tie in the first place if you can’t tie it properly? You look like a 10-year-old.” Of course, this is an old-fashioned attitude to the point I must seem like some elderly fellow with nothing better to do than wave his cane in the air and mutter about “Kids today…”. I learned how a gentleman dresses during a more formal era (I suppose), and I really appreciate a person that knows how to dress like a proper one.
I voted for Trump and I really like this website and I tried my best to see this article as anything but propaganda. Honestly, this article was really interesting. If anything, I kept asking, “Okay, so, where did Trump do that?” or “okay, but Trump never committed that crime…” I know this article is moderately anti-Trump politically but for anyone who actually pays attention, it’s actually a succinct legal explanation of what’s actually going on if you look past the politics. This article actually puts Trump’s actions into a better legal perspective – nothing he has done is actually illegal – however, there is some wiggle room to interpret his actions as “against the law” and they will have to be proven without a shadow of a doubt – not in the court of public opinion, where so many decisions are made regarding our President.
Thanks for these, man, they’re really interesting. Especially considering, since america really hasn’t dealt with anything similar to this (No matter your opinion on what happened) and here we have dealt with similar cases, especially regarding the time frame during soviet occupation and when we had to impeach our president. Let’s hope whatever the decision it establishes some sort of legal precedent for cases like this.
Lots of people just came in looking for trouble and left the moment you used words associated with their opposition. They stick a bunch of labels onto you the moment they see your face, categorise you neatly into their little boxes and leave, content in their minds that they have everything figured out. People who want to be objective will start asking about the other side because in some way, they see this article as an attack on their side and so they think that you should ‘attack’ the other side or you are biased. I suppose that’s the problem with dealing with anything remotely applicable to a current issue. If you don’t cover ‘all sides’, you are biased. That’s somewhat true in journalism but this isn’t really a news website. It’s the same song and dance, over and over and over and over and over. Please find a new format, America. This dualism is getting old.
Seems as though there’s quite a bit of deflection in the comments.👀 You knew what the article was going to be about. If you can’t handle facts and information on the law instead of opinion being spewed out and misinformation (like Fox News) then why click on the article?🤷♀️ y’all really confuse me lol🤣🤣🤣
I have a serious question. What about treason? Would this quantify treason in any way? I know that in the official US Code it states that a requirement of war or bringing of war is required but, acts of cyberwarfare are a type of war and working with a foreign nation that has committed cyberwarfare against political figures within the US would constitute warfare would it not?
So, that kid that people are crucifying for no reason right now. How would he go about seeking legal action for slander and defamation? From an outsider looking in, it appears nothing short of open and shut in his favour. Unless of course, smiling at a man playing music for you is somehow now illegal. Then again, you can never keep up with what the alleged holier-than-thou crowd get offended by; The criteria changes on a near-hourly basis.
I object! For conspiracy or aiding and abetting charges it must be proven that one knew a crime would be or was committed. If you ask me to lend you $10 and you buy 10 pounds of pure heroin with that $10 I am not a conspirator unless I knew or had good reason to suspect that you were going to buy heroin with it. If you ask me to drive you to a friends house and while you’re there you purchase 10 pounds of pure heroin for $10 but I don’t know it I’m not an accomplice in that crime. If the police are looking for you on a warrent for buying heroin and you come to my house and ask to spend the night without my knowing that you’ve committed a crime and are hiding from the police I’m not aiding or abetting. All require knowing participation on my part, I have to know that I am either aiding you in a crime or assisting you after you’ve committed the crime. Now if I know you’re buying heroin but don’t know that’s a crime I’m still guilty, but if I have no knowledge that you’re going to buy heroin, are buying heroin or have purchased heroin that’s different.
Can you explain the legalities of so-called “fake news” in relation to say libel statutes? If the originator of a “fake news” article knows they are presenting false information as true, writing it, spreading it, and profiting from it, are they not committing a crime or causing damage? And if so, who would have standing to bring suit? Would it be criminal or civil? So many questions…
Honestly the fact that a leader of a powerful country is even tangentially connected to so many crimes would normally be enough to sink a political career forever. The fact that he’s more than tangentially connected, and is almost certainly guilty of at least a few (particularly the emoluments clauses, both foreign and domestic) and yet is still standing is absolutely astonishing. And also more than a little terrifying. That’s without getting into the actual politics or dodgy calls, or the incessant tweeting, of the fact that he speaks and writes at a level lower than my 11yo daughter. Aren’t leaders supposed to be intelligent and at least a little eloquent? And yet, he’s still here. That tells me that the senate Republicans particularly, have put politics above their jobs. Which is just awful. They’re supposed to be a check and balance for both the president and Congress. But they’re refusing to do their jobs. This is not to say that the politics of my country, Australia, is in much of a better state- it’s not. There’s corruption galore, and some of that corruption and refusal to deal with the facts has come home to roost with a massive river system (that keeps the entire eastern inland of the country going), dying before our eyes. And that’s just one issue of many. So we aren’t much better, but it’s still horrifying to watch what’s happening to American politics- and especially because it has so much influence on all other nations.
Objection! Best damn article on your website so far, LE. Loved the pacing and the graphics; felt a little less rushed (verbally) than some of your previous ones. I would like to see a “Real Lawyer Reacts” to the movie Double Jeopardy, especially given (spoiler alert) the finale is supposedly excused by double jeopardy even though it totally shouldn’t be. 🙂
In formal psychoanalysis one, as analyst, sees the analysand (patient) keeps changing the subject when issue X comes up – and goes along with it so long as the analyst knows this is a way the analysand is using to avoid facing something important and painful psychologically. Aiding and abetting works as well were psychoanalytic errors criminal……
“From the Hip” Judd Nelson,John Hurt, Elizabeth Perkins 1987 might be a fun episode to do/watch. (also many thanks to you for this excellent and timely episode which is a valuable public service. As tricky as it is you may also want to do one on the legality of compelling federal works to work without pay..)
Not related to this article, but I was perusal Rake (Australian law tv series, technically) and even though it’s Australian I thought it’d be interesting for you to cover it, as I’m pretty sure Australian law is similar enough that you wouldn’t have an issue with it. And there are some very funny quotes that are quite typically Australian in their cynicism: E.g. 1: “I do believe in the law, I just don’t believe in justice.” E.g. 2: “My win rate is 51%” “That doesn’t sound very good!” “It is considering 90% are guilty.”
During the first presidential debate, Trump questions intelligence community findings that Russia hacked the DNC: “I don’t think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. (Clinton’s) saying Russia, Russia, Russia, but I don’t—maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK?”
Qeustion: IF aiding also includes after the act deede are there people who maybe exampt from the charge ? I’m askeing because in Germany we have a law which is similar, as everybody who concleles a crime in order to help a perp is themself up for charges. Exampt are direct relatives (parents, children, siblings and the spouse). Is there are similar rule in the US in where everybody who has the “right to refuse to give evidence” is exampt from this law? The argument in germany is, that close relatives are bound by their emotion to help even if they realise the act was unlawfull and because our courts realise those strong bonds, the act itself is not punishable for close relatives (now if during that act the relative breaks another law it’s a different argument but for the act itself no relative is punished) This law is on the same grounds on why people are not punished for trying to break out of a prison – as the courts reckognised that the impuls to freedom is to strong to be punished. Again if during that act other crimes are committed (such as bodily harm or destrcution of property) those crimes are charged but not the act of trying to break out itself.
Not as much an objection, but a point of order (parliamentary rules). The POTUS tends to get into trouble because he uses “short-hand” and if you know what he is saying, you understand “wall” and “fence” mean the same thing and that “Bad people on both sides” and “drug dealers and murderers” (etc) don’t include the people not committing the bad actions. I’m glad we are clarifying this “collusion” as a “shorthand” for other things, but if the POTUS gets condemned for using short hand, then those condemning him shouldn’t use shorthand either.
I recently read an article about the difficulty of realistically building the Mexico border wall, even if the funding for the construction was somehow obtained, there would be no way for the government to eminent domain the entire border. Is there a way the government can overcome the 5th Amendment, specifically this part “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”?
Hey DJ, I was perusal a lot of your articles answering the legal situations in various tv shows and movies. I was wondering if you’d watch, react, and rate the legal situation raised in the movie “The Exorcism of Emily Rose.” I understand that this is a horror movie and I’m sure you’ve never worked a case which is similar because of how rare they’d be. But I’d be particularly interested in your take on the doctor who explains what exorcism is through her eyes. If not, I just hope you keep up the amazing, knowledgeable content which keeps me coming back to watch again and again.
@LE: I’m late seeing this presentation, but it was fascinating. Thank you. A question in furtherance of the topic: Start with your fundamental definition that a conspiracy is an agreement between at least two parties to commit a criminal act. But what if two or more of the conspirators were unaware of the other’s acts/actions in furtherance of the conspiracy, yet shared the same criminal goal? With your presentation, the now classic, first-season “Manuchi” (Title: Torrents of Greed) double-episode of Law & Order came to mind. (Yes, I know it’s TV, not reality, but the question is real.) Briefly, mob plotters conspire to bootleg cigarettes- not paying tax stamps. But two of the major conspirators have very different roles in the conspiracy and in fact are likely unaware of the other’s actions in furtherance of the ongoing crime. One a leg-breaking collector for the mob boss, the other arranging shipment/storage of the illegal cigarettes through a warehouse. As stated, Party A and Party B are unaware of each other’s malfeasance. ADA Stone has a line, “That’s the beauty of a conspiracy Gentlemen. The left hand can get the right hand in a whole lot of trouble.” Do you believe this legal principle is correct? Or must each conspirator actively know and share all criminal goals plans part of the conspiracy? Happy New Year! TY.
Question, not an Objection: Can you at some point discuss why forcing a motorist to give blood in order to charge them with DUI or DWI is not a violation of the 4th and/or 5th amendment. The language in those amendments seems clear cut to me when it comes to constitutional law. (I don’t drive drunk and don’t want others to, but legal precedent can be a slippery slope.)
Hi LegalEagle, I’d love to see your commentary on one of my favorite episodes of Better Call Saul, Season 3 Episode 5- Chicanery. It involves one of the topics you call out most in your articles, disbarrment. It is nearly an entire episode documenting a disbarrment hearing of the State Bar of New Mexico vs. Jimmy McGill. Thanks for listening and I love your articles.
Question: What type of lawyer do I need if looking into my options for my workplace not allowing me space to pump milk? My job meets the criteria set out by both state and federal laws, but they won’t provide me a space other than a toilet stall. I need to know which kind of lawyer I need to talk to.
If you are conspiring, are you also responsible for components to the crime that happened before you joined the conspiration? (Say people kill a guy to get a keycard for a bank, then ask someone for help for the robbery and he becomes an accomplice. Is he now also responsible for the murder or only the robbery?)
This episode and its topic really beg for your review of the movie “Find Me Guilty” . It’s based on the longest Mafia trial in American history, against the Lucchese crime family. It includes things like 76 counts of RICO charges, 240 volumes and 850 exhibits of evidence and a man representing himself amidst all that.
I have two questions. 1. What’s the difference between witness tampering and witness intimidation? You mentioned witness tampering in this article and I have certainly heard about witness intimidation from news commentators and from TV law dramas, but I don’t know what the difference is if there is any. 2. Are people prosecuted for perjury? I’ve heard a few TV news commentators and pundits claim that hardly anyone is nowadays. Is that true or is that an overstatement? Thank you for answering.
I actually find it surprising you managed to sum up all of trump’s various crimes so quickly and succinctly, that it makes me think that you still definitely missed some. The media takes weeks to cover or explain even ONE of his most recent crimes, to the point where the public has such a short term memory about it and other crimes fall through the cracks. Your brevity and clarity only proves you are an excellent lawyer. I really hope that when the time comes to put that man behind bars, there is someone with communication skills as good as yours on the prosecution.
Could you please do an episode on ‘article 13’? Many YouTubers are freaking out and there is a petition being signed, but the only things you hear about it are: – it’s going to mess with the copyright law – memes will be gone I guess that that’s all you have to know, but it would be interesting to get an explonation from an actual lawyer (and an exellent one)
Hi LegalEagle! Could you comment on/explain whether Whitaker’s behavior could be charged for contempt of congress? While I do think there’s grandstanding on both sides and some questions appear unfair regardless of your opinion of Whitaker (my test is if your opinion of the question changes based on your opinion of the individual, it probably wasn’t a good question), based on other hearings I’ve seen I’m under the understanding the legal expectation is you respect congress and its procedures regardless. Can anyone actually talk to congress that way and not be charged with contempt?
7:20 I was surprised there wasn’t a tip box explaining what that weird word “rico” was, so here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act And then… so what is collusion? I get these other terms, legal or otherwise, but collusion is certainly not an everyday “everyone understands this” word they’ve necessarily even heard of before. :S
Objection! I would love to see a article about this state agreement to give their electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Nevada’s legislature just passed it, but their governor hasn’t yet signed it. If he does, they will be the 15th state to join. Do you think it will pass constitutional muster?
U.S. Code § 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States And, in this case the term “offense” is defined as any criminal offense, other than an offense triable by court-martial, military commission, provost court, or other military tribunal, which is in violation of an Act of Congress and is triable in any court established by Act of Congress. So… Even if you’re not successful, this could very well fall under conspiracy to violate U.S. Code § 30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals In that law it clearly states it’s unlawful for a foreign person (or group of persons, like a foreign government) to make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election and it is unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive that contribution or donation. The two definitions at issue here are what exactly is a “thing of value” and what does “in connection” mean? Because this is really problematic. Might it be conceivable for a person in elected office have the leader of a foreign country endorse them? That could be considered something “of value” – right? And, in our modern hyper political world, what ISN’T somehow “connected” to an election? But – without going down the rabbit hole on “connected” to an election – the most critical element after you identify the connection to an election, which in the case of this whole thing seems rather well established, the idea of what might be of “value” and how objective a standard that really is.
Question, and it might make an episode. Is Michael Cohen’s testimony a violation of attorney-client privilege? Why is he able to testify to private discussions between himself and the president? In TV and Movies, attorney-client privilege is like this sacrosanct thing that can never be violated for any reason. Are there loopholes? Is he just ignoring it? Are there penalties for its violation? Just some side thoughts that I had. If you see this and answer, thanks! And I really enjoy your website!
Wait, objection! At 1:45 you say that a conspiracy doesn’t require an overt act. That’s not correct; quoth the federal conspiracy statute, 18 USC 371, “If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States… *and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,*” (And while the federal statute is almost certainly the one they violated most egregiously, I’m pretty sure every state statute requires the same; a conspiracy law without an overt act requirement would almost certainly run afoul of the First Amendment) Of course, you don’t have to be the one doing the overt act; if you’re just talking about it, and the other guy starts going out and buying supplies, or casing the joint, or the like (the “overt act” bar is pretty low), then you’re in for conspiracy liability. Which is probably why discussing kidnapping plots with agents of a foreign secret police is a really bad idea, since the odds that they would then go off and commit a couple of overt acts are pretty high.
The other thing about saying “Collusion” instead of any of those things is that you can imply that, you know, just talking to Ruskis might be a crime. Also, for those who haven’t seen it, Ken White’s soapbox rant on why it’s basically never RICO is a true classic and is available at popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/
One thing you didn’t mention was solicitation (unless that’s what you meant by encouragement.) Is there a federal statute or statutes that make it an offense against the United States to request or to order a person to commit an offense with the intent it should be committed–whether the other person agrees to commit the offense or does so? Though I don’t know if that could be described as collusion.
this is just a question, There bill in colorado that trying to go thought but these big company are having call center over sea that have most of the American #ss and cc# that they can used anyway they feel fit is there a way to protect us from these hack, because they dont have to follow the laws here in the United States the bill right now is to stop company from going over sea to protect us ??? any thought
Could legal counsel be prosecuted under conspiracy (i.e. they had knowledge of the potential criminal act) or aid and abetting (by rendering legal service and advice to elude law enforcement)? Would privilege protect them from criminal prosecution? For example, there are episodes in ‘The Good Wife’ were Carry Agos gets arrested for providing hypothetical legal advice to a drug dealer on how to elude law enforcement/get charged with a lesser crime (a good portion of season 6). Lastly, is there a Patreon for this YouTube website, so I can support it properly? Thank you in advance, A prospective law student.
Please educate everyone on what happens when a criminal case crosses over into a counter-intelligence case . I’m so excited for the potential deferred prosecutions (from 20 years +) to start cracking down. Also, can you please breakdown the Jeffrey Epstein case, how he got such a cherry deal…again probably criminal that also turned into a counter-intel investigation but, there’s a whole lot of disgusting egg white lube that made that happen with a lot of intimidation and abuse of power.Those victims got fooked over and it’s pretty disgusting. So you breaking down how that happens makes it less likely for it to keep happening. Also, it would be cool to know how you gather your open source intelligence when building a case. I mean I’m only an ICIJ amateur but, can navigate it a bit easier than others just from learning by trial and error. Plus, I’m looking for very specific things. Example: I figured out that my dad used ALL of my adult addresses and my siblings’ to set up bunk accounts offshore in order to launder money for a huge religious institution. I found that by digging in the ICIJ and saying hey why do all of my addresses connect me to the same address in freaking Cypress and Niue along with the church I grew up in. ICIJ doesn’t have a good tutorial on that.Thanks, fellow nerds.
What about religious. Freedom to aiding and abetting. As a high priest of the Jewish ppl my over 500 commandments are clear the shall help those being pressued escape there presuers. Positive commandment. The negative. Addition to this religious. Duty is even at the cost of the presuers life. My job as a high priest is not to judge some one for what they have done but try to get thorough to them so it does not happen again
I believe there are many interesting topics here to be discussed, mainly because of technological advancement and because the world is getting increasingly crazier. However, I would like to know your opinion on someone that clearly knows its own government is doing harm to its people (at some level, even potentially violating some laws) and he happens to be a federal agent or similar. So he gets involved in cyber hacking actions and exposes the US government wrongdoings. Because of this situation, he flies to another foreign country which happens to be a sort of a nemesis (at least politically) of the US. Therefore, from a law point of view, he violated several cybersecurity laws and more importantly, he collaborated with foreign countries clearly against the interest of the US. What do you think? Is it fair? Does he deserve to be pardoned? Having said that, I would like also to discuss this other idea. According to the Logan Act, it is a crime to confer with foreign governments against the interest of the US… I understand this was passed in 1948 and I also understand what kind of time it was. However, I wonder until what point that law can be considered patriotic, fair or just. You see, what if your government and its agencies commit crimes in its territories and even abroad (such as killing, aiding terrorists, etc.) but as a citizen, you cannot stop it. I think of Venezuela. Why according to certain US lawmakers it is fair to foreign opposition groups violate similar laws in their countries but within the states, this is unfair and undemocratic?
Objection! According to your definition, didn’t DT conspire, or at least aid and abet, with MC to commit campaign finance violations? Since MC has already been convicted of the crime, and DT is on tape discussing the action before it happened, AND has provided the money to commit said crime, it seems to me that the case is basically made. Or am I getting something wrong? Maybe there are some caveats that you didn’t mention? I’d love to see a more detailed analysis on just this one crime in another article. Or any case revolving around DT with sufficient evidence already out in the open. Give us your legal analysis! Sincerely, Eagle 8776
4:00 So would websites that offer malware likely to be used for such purposes be liable if someone did, in fact, use malware for said purpose? Lurked on a few such forums many years ago out of curiosity, never really interacted with anyone or even made an account. I was just really curious. Most of them seemed oriented around vigilantism. At least that was the impression.
I would like to see a article on if what White Pages .com is doing is legal or not. Maybe the displaying of everyone’s adress is legal but it also displays relatives which is some people’s security questions. And if displaying such personal information is still legal . Most likely it’s illegal that they profit from having individuals pay to remove their information from their site
Tony Schwartz, the ghost writer of Trump’s 1987 bestselling book, “The Art of the Deal,” said the reckoning Trump faces follows decades of operating under a belief that he was above the law. “He got away with so much, for so long, that he came to believe he was untouchable and invincible,” Schwartz said. He said Trump followed the tactics he learned from his late mentor, the hard-knuckled New York lawyer Roy Cohn — “Lie about everything, attack back twice as hard as you’ve been hit, keep at it relentlessly until people finally give up and (they) stop arguing with your fabricated reality.”
You know that feeling you get when you meet someone for the first time and you know he or she is a total sleezebag with absolutely zero morals. Your internal radar starts going crazy. That happened to me when I first saw Trump and I’m not surprised that America is where it’s at. The longer this man stays in office the worse the outcome will be for all of us.
Prosecutors need to charge tRump’s son in law and the kids now ( i’m sure they’ve broken lots of laws),., with federal and state charges so he can’t just simply pardon them.,., then i think he will think about stepping down to save his kids. we need to get the country back on the right track. I’m getting tired with all of this circus back and forth. !!