While there is no specific crime of collusion, collusion is definitely a thing that exists. The ordinary everyday definition of collusion is secret cooperation, and we have a lot of evidence that there was secret cooperation between members of the Trump campaign and people acting on behalf of the Russian government.
Anyone who says there is no evidence of collusion is using a non-standard definition of evidence, collusion, or both.
That sounds like just a cover for some goal-post-moving. You carry on about collusion and when no one ends up getting indicted for it, you claim it was never a crime and hey look there’s a guy indicted for tax evasion …
I’m aware that collusion is not necessarily a crime, but acts which are commonly understood to be collusion can also involve crimes, and frequently will. For example, Mueller just indicted 13 Russians for election hanky-panky. If Trump people aided and abetted these Russians in their efforts, then it would almost certainly involve some sort of crime, if only of the “conspiracy” type if not more. So if there were senior Trump people involved with these Russians, then you would expect to see them indicted for it. If that happens, then even if the charge is not technically “the crime of collusion” that’s what it would effectively amount to, and people who predicted collusion charges will have something to point to. But if no one is indicted for anything which involves colluding with Russians, then claiming that this is because collusion itself is not a crime is a very weak argument.
Beyond that, Mueller’s mandate is not just to indict people, but also to ferret out the truth of what happened. Even in the extremely unlikely event that Trump people have managed to collude with Russians to sway the election without committing any sort of crime in the course of doing so, Mueller would have to lay out these facts in reporting on the results of his investigation. If that doesn’t happen, then either collusion didn’t happen or Trump’s people are indeed some of the sharpest minds and most capable operators of this era in managing to cover their tracks, and I know which option I’m going with.
I agree with this completely - we won’t send anyone to prison for a crime of collusion, but cooperating with a hostile foreign power to subvert our democratic election is plenty bad enough to remove Trump from office.
We don’t yet have the smoking-gun evidence of collusion, we just have lots and lots of circumstantial evidence, plus hard evidence that the Trump campaign was willing (or eager) to collude.
This precisely! While there isn’t proof publicly available there is tons of evidence, much of it circumstantial, of collusion.
Circumstantial evidence is a subset of evidence.
ROFL, Poster Boy for what I was talking about. Get it through your head, you thick git: There. Is. No. Crime. Of. Collusion. It’s not that it isn’t "necessarily" a crime, it isn’t a crime.
Say nothing further unless or until you can find and cite one single statute of “collusion.” You’re making yourself more ridiculous than usual – and that’s saying something.
Lance Turbo and CurtC, I understand your points and agree completely – but it’s important to understand that there will never, ever, under any circumstances be a crime alleging “collusion.” I am speaking from a legal perspective, not the commonly-understood term of collusion, which I agree is meant as an umbrella term to cover many different criminal acts. But as you can see, by continuing to use the layperson’s term of “collusion,” dumbasses like F-P will claim goal-post moving because there will never be an actual charge of collusion. He is unable to draw the distinction, like many Trump supporters.
I see you quoted an entire post but your response indicates that you only understood one sentence. Possibly even only one word.
I mean, not that I would expect more of you. I’ve seen many of your posts.
FTR, I said “necessarily” because while I’ve seen this claim made many times, I’m not completely certain that it’s true in all circumstances. I’m aware that you (amusingly) consider yourself a big time legal expert and are very prone to making definitive declarations about what the law is or isn’t as you’re doing here, but I like to be more circumspect.
Regardless, the point I was making - and which failed to penetrate what you’re passing off as your mind - was based on the premise that collusion is not a crime.
I’m not really interested in discussing what is or is not a crime. I’m refuting this statement from the House Intel Committee one page summary of the investigation, “We have found no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.”
That statement is a lie. There is a lot of evidence. Some of that evidence can be found in transcripts of House Intel hearings.
Whether or not there is a crime called collusion is irrelevant to the truth value of that statement from the summary.
I agree with this entirely.
There is a lot of value in using terms that people understand rather than identifying particular specific laws that may or may not have been violated. The investigation is into what happened. Those happenings can perhaps be mapped onto crimes.
If someone says someone committed the crime of collusion, that’s when the conversation can switch to what crimes might have been committed, if any, and how collusion is just a colloquial term for secret dealings. But when it’s just a conversation without a lot of clear information, calling the whole bucket of happenings possible collusion makes perfect sense to me.
Or “hinky dealings,” if you prefer.
Says the guy who solicits free advice from lawyers and then argues with them about the information they share.
If that was true, you had no basis to accuse me of moving goal posts. But you did.
No, unsurprisingly you failed to understand that thread as well. As indicated by your characterizing a purely theoretical question about the rationale for a legal practice as “solicits free advice from lawyers …”. Having misunderstood the nature of the question, it’s unsurprising that you also misunderstood the subsequent discussion. (I mean, not that it would surprising otherwise, of course.)
No, of course I did. But again, you lack the most basic understanding of that post.
FTR, the fact that I commented on your post was not indicative of an intention to engage you in any sort of discussion. I’ve not been much in the mood of late of exchanges with people of your mental capacity. But sometime even a dimwit says something whose speciousness is not readily apparent, and it’s worth pointing that out for the benefit of others who may be capable of appreciating it, if any such happen to be reading.
Aspenglow, you might want to drag that over here. 
That’s what a discussion is. Talk about dimwits.
I wish I had a quarter for every time Fotheringay-Phipps accused someone of not understanding his posts. I’d definitely be getting a much bigger tax cut.
It’s not necessarily a lie.
Their next statement is that they were unable to locate their own asses, even after trying to use both hands.
LOL, already did. 
Too right.
Happens a lot, I agree.
IMO it’s due to the nature of this forum and its overwhelming partisan lean.
As has been discussed elsewhere on this forum, posters are less apt to challenge stupid posts from people whose broader position they share, as compared to posts whose broader position they disagree with. The result of this is that if you share the basic ideology of the majority of this board, you can consistently post the most inane drivel and find widespread acceptance of your posts. Fellow dimwits will enthusiastically agree with your posts, and more intelligent posters will let them pass. This encourages and emboldens feeble-minded people, and results in a situation in which many people confidently post about things that are far beyond their understanding.
[ETA: it’s a bit more nuanced than that, but that’s the basic gist.]
Wow, way to insult almost everyone at the SD. Also way to exactly prove my point. You just can’t get along here without constant insults and claims of intellectual superiority can you?
More like its just that you resort to petty insults of others’ intelligence when you can’t actually defend your point. You aren’t convincing anyone of anything by acting like you are the smartest person here. You do it all the time. If someone makes an inane point it should be trivial to just point that out if you are so much smarter than everyone, but instead you just do this… all the time…
That’s not so. If someone makes a point that’s so inane that it indicates a lack of the most basic comprehension skills then there’s no real point in getting into detail let alone an extended back-and-forth. On the one hand, since the point is that inane, then it’s likely that any intelligent person will realize it on their own. And as for the person making the point and their fellow-nitwits, well if they went so far off the rails the first time there’s no reason to expect anything better the second time either.
But again, sometimes there is some value in responding substantively to a seemingly-valid point, which was the impetus for my initial response to Aspenglow, as above.
As for “petty insults”, I find this type of whining amusing. You dish it out all tough and then run crying to your mommy if you get a bit back. But I think there’s something to these complaints. Because - despite the lopsided ratio of these insults - deep down you have this sinking feeling that there’s at least something to what I’m saying while you’re just mouthing off, and the truth hurts more.
I wasn’t whining, just making an observation (one that I might add you’ve committed some lengthy replies to, perhaps thou dost protest too much? Hit a little too close to home, did I?)
Cite all of these insults that I dish out please. Also cite me running to my mommy. I didn’t report you for anything, again its just an observation. Which you seem to be going to great lengths to explain and justify.
I’m not mouthing off. Once again, just observing. It is telling that you have to say things like “a lack of the most basic comprehension skills”, “fellow-nitwits”, “run crying to your mommy”, that I “dish it out all tough”, that I’m “mouthing off”. Can you communicate without insults? Seems to be a challenge for you if you can’t even do it while defending yourself for doing it too much.
I will bet that you can’t go one week without insulting anyone’s intelligence or touting your own intellect. I don’t think you’re capable. It’s pretty much your trademark, so I am having a difficult time envisioning your posts without that stuff.