Collusion IS illegal. Definition of collusion:

[shraby]

noun
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially to cheat or deceive others

at dictionary.com
noun
1. a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy;
a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights,
or to appear as adversaries though in agreement

Merriam-Webster:
Definition of collusion: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an ILLEGAL or deceitful purpose acting in collusion with the enemy.

[malaise]

1. Ignore the latest fake news from Fox snd ReTHUGs

They know there is evidence of collusion - they must also deal with obstruction of justice.

[shraby]

2. When they start to also try convince that obstruction is not a crime, we'll know for sure

that charges are not far behind for donnie boy.

[malaise]

4. Isn't that the truth

Sadly for decades they have been given a pass for treasonous acts.

[LOL Lib]

3. Collusion with an enemy is one step closer to being a traitor in my book.

Matters not whether collusion itself is a crime. I want to see him tagged as a traitor, but I know it's a pipe dream. Seeing his base turn on him would crush his ego and that is one of the worst punishments he could get.

[PoliticAverse]

5. "secret _or_ illegal" - All "secret" things are not necessarily "illegal".

Conspiracy to commit a crime is illegal. "Collusion" may or may not be illegal
depending on whether there was a crime involved.

[shraby]

6. Illegal conspiracies are secret as a rule.

[PoliticAverse]

7. "conspiracy" to commit a crime is illegal. Whether "collusion" constitutes "conspiracy"...

depends on whether there is a crime involved or not.

"colluding" with someone to break into someone's computer would be a crime.
"colluding" with someone to plan a surprise birthday party for someone wouldn't be.

[shraby]

9. In the definition, it is apparently a term use for illegal actions, not legal ones.

Last edited Tue Jun 27, 2017, 01:33 AM - Edit history (1)

[PoliticAverse]

10. In the definition you posted, it says...

noun
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy

Secret OR illegal, because secret isn't necessarily illegal.

[Mr. Ected]

8. You're deluded if you think he's precluded from having colluded

Not really. Just kidding. Just couldn't help stringing those words together.

[PoliticAverse]

11. I've concluded you've alluded. n/t

[Gothmog]

12. When Collusion with Russia Becomes a Crime: Part IIIAiding and Abetting

President Obama's attorney has some good articles on this. Here is just one https://www.justsecurity.org/42387/collusion-russia-crime-part-iii-aiding-abetting/

It may be easier to appreciate the case to the contrary–that liability with the requisite intent could be imposed for these actions–by considering how the case could also be brought under ordinary “aiding and abetting” principles of the criminal law.

It is well understood that established “aiding and abetting” principles have wide, elastic application. The abettor is not required, of course, to have been “in on it” from the beginning. In Learned Hand’s classic formulation in United States v. Peoni, the law requires only “that he in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as in something that he wishes to bring about, that he seek by his action to make it succeed.” The courts have defined in various terms this association, but what is required is “some affirmative conduct designed to aid in the success of a venture with knowledge that [the]actions would assist the perpetrator, the principal of the crime.” United States v. Cowart, 595 F.2d 1023, 1031(1979).

Note that the assistance constituting aiding and abetting does not have to be substantial. The accomplice liability provision of the federal campaign finance law, focused on “substantial assistance,” is, in that sense, stricter. ,So federal prosecutors proceeding on an “aiding and abetting” theory may have the latitude to reach a broader range of Trump campaign conduct in support of the Russian program.

It would not be the first time that Prosecutors would have enforced campaign finance law with an “aiding and abetting” charge. And they have evidence in the Trump/Russia case with which to work.

[niyad]

20. thank you so much for this excellent information

[Gothmog]

22. I am a law nerd

There have been posts on the law blogs on this issue for a while. I just went back and pulled a few of the ones that were easy to find. This is not a close question.

[niyad]

23. we know that the name of the game is obfuscation.

[NurseJackie]

27. Fascinating stuff... thank you very much for sharing it.

[Gothmog]

13. Campaign Finance Law: When Collusion with a Foreign Government Becomes a Crime

Here is another good analysis on this issue https://www.justsecurity.org/41593/hiding-plain-sight-federal-campaign-finance-law-trump-campaign-collusion-russia-trump/

Commentary on Russian intervention in the 2016 elections has included one confidently expressed and perhaps growing view: that there may be a scandal there, but no conceivable crime. It is claimed that the Trump campaign could wink and nod at Russian hacking, and derive the full benefit, but that without considerably more evidence of direct involvement, there is no role for criminal law enforcement. The matter is then left to Congress to consider whether new laws are needed, and the public, of course, will render its judgment in opinion polls and in elections still to come.

This view is flawed. It fails to consider the potential campaign finance violations, as suggested by the facts so far known, under existing law. These violations are criminally enforceable.

It would not be the first time Congress wrestled with these questions of foreign interference with the US electoral process. Following the 1996 elections, the Republican Party concluded that the victorious Bill Clinton had benefited from foreign intervention in his election. Its Senate majority organized hearings, chaired by the late Senator Fred Thompson, who opened them with the declaration that high-level Chinese officials had committed substantial sums of money to influence the presidential election. The ensuing investigation, which included a parallel criminal inquiry, did not live up to Senator Thompson’s most dramatic claims, but Congress later amended the law to tighten the long-standing prohibition against foreign national spending in federal elections. On this point, there was bipartisan unity: that the law should stand clearly and without gaping loopholes against foreign interference in American elections.

Then the issue made a dramatic return in this last presidential election, but with a major difference. This time, there is no doubt that a foreign state, Russia, devoted resources to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. But unlike 1996, the manner of this intervention—the hacking of emails, the dissemination of fake news—has directed much of the legal discussion to computer security and espionage statutes. The controversy has not had the “feel” of a classic case about political spending. It has come across in press reporting and public discussion as a tale of 21st century cyber-crime and foreign intelligence service skullduggery—more sophisticated international intrigue than Watergate’s “third-rate burglary” and associated cover-up. “Unlike the Watergate investigation, which began with a break-in,” the New Yorker’s and CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin has written, “it is not immediately clear what crimes may have been committed.” And even if there might be criminal wrongdoing somewhere in this Trump campaign-Russia relationship, commentators have tended to doubt that there is yet sufficient hard evidence of it.

[Gothmog]

14. Campaign Finance Law: When Collusion Becomes a Crime: Part II

Here is more of this analysis https://www.justsecurity.org/41795/campaign-finance-law-collusion-crime-part-ii/

It follows that the evidence in support of the “substantial assistance” would be different in quantity and nature from what is needed for a “coordination” claim. The evidence on the public record shows the Trump campaign encouraging the Russian activities and making active use of the hacked results. If there is a doubt that this is enough, the answer is not to return to the coordination rules, devised mostly for other cases: This only confuses the issue. Rather than only look “externally” for direct communications between campaign and foreign government, the investigation would focus its efforts more “internally,” on the campaign’s intent to build this de facto political alliance with Russia.

Some of the questions would be:

What do the records of the campaign–and the sworn testimony of campaign aides–establish about the strategic importance to the campaign of these Russian activities?

Did the campaign decide that it would not denounce the Russians, either on its own initiative or in response to press queries, because it did not wish to discourage them from continuing on their course?

Was the message intended for Russia discussed during preparations for the presidential debate, which would explain Mr. Trump’s special care in refusing to assign direct blame for the hacking to the government or to reject any assistance from the hackers?

What were the specific plans for active messaging around the hacked emails–in the press, in the preparation of surrogates for media appearances, and in the remarks prepared for or by the candidate for rallies and his own press interviews?

If there is evidence of this kind, it would match up with the known campaign and Trump handling of the Russia issue and answer any question of intent. The president’s open praise for the hacking, his stated “love” of Wikileaks, his refusal to condemn any state interference in the elections, could not be passed off as “Trump being Trump,” as the candidate just playing with the issue and relishing the coverage that came with it. Instead these actions, together with other evidence of intent that may still come to light, would represent the execution of a very specific campaign strategy to provide substantial assistance to the Putin regime’s program of intervention in an American presidential election.

[brer cat]

15. Thank you for these posts, Gothmog.

Many of us have expressed our view that a crime occurred, but we don't know the legal basis for such a charge. I hope it will make us stronger advocates when we encounter those fools who fall for the trump propaganda, although most of them live in a fact-free bubble and are not likely to hear anything we say.

[Gothmog]

16. I follow a number of law blogs

Bob Bauer is a very good attorney and did a good job of explaining why collusion is a crime. There are other legal analysis that are just as strong. This is not a close question.

The FBI and the Special Counsel are devoting a ton of effort and legal talent to this investigation. You do not assemble the legal talent like what the Special Counsel has assembled without intending to indict someone

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. The original poster needs to cite a statute, not the dictionary.

There are statutes that cover conspiracy.

[NurseJackie]

18. Reality-Based Posts. Excellent. Thank you for sharing this info...

... it's helps me to begin to understand the TRUTH.

[Gothmog]

24. I live in the real world and there are a number of good articles on this issue

I just pulled some that were easy to find from a lawyer who I trust. Bob Bauer is a great lawyer and he did a good job on this issue

[Baitball Blogger]

19. Is there a legal definition in the Criminal Law books?

[niyad]

21. k and r and bookmarking for all the excellent information in this thread.

[kentuck]

25. Legal definition:

Collusion occurs when two persons or representatives of an entity or organization make an agreement to deceive or mislead another. Such agreements are usually secretive, and involve fraud or gaining an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or others with whom they are negotiating.
Collusion - US Legal Definitions.com
https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/collusion/

Here it is in the US Code:
http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-201.html
<snip>
Whoever--

 directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent--

 to influence any official act;  or

 to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States;  or

 to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;

 being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

 being influenced in the performance of any official act;

 being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States;  or

 being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;  

 directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;

 directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;

shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

[Gothmog]

26. Fox News host wrong that no law forbids Russia-Trump collusion

Here is some more on why collusion between trump and Russia would be a crime http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/may/31/gregg-jarrett/fox-news-hosts-wrong-no-law-forbids-russia-trump-c/

We ran Jarrett’s argument by three election law professors, and they all said that while the word "collusion" might not appear in key statutes (they couldn’t say for sure that it was totally absent), working with the Russians could violate criminal laws.

Nathaniel Persily at Stanford University Law School said one relevant statute is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

"A foreign national spending money to influence a federal election can be a crime," Persily said. "And if a U.S. citizen coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, then it could be a crime."

Persily pointed to a 2011 U.S. District Court ruling based on the 2002 law. The judges said that the law bans foreign nationals "from making expenditures to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a political candidate."

Another election law specialist, John Coates at Harvard University Law School, said if Russians aimed to shape the outcome of the presidential election, that would meet the definition of an expenditure.

"The related funds could also be viewed as an illegal contribution to any candidate who coordinates (colludes) with the foreign speaker," Coates said.

To be sure, no one is saying that coordination took place. What’s in doubt is whether the word "collusion" is as pivotal as Jarrett makes it out to be.

Coates said discussions between a campaign and a foreigner could violate the law against fraud.

"Under that statute, it is a federal crime to conspire with anyone, including a foreign government, to ‘deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,’ " Coates said. "That would include fixing a fraudulent election, in my view, within the plain meaning of the statute."

Josh Douglas at the University of Kentucky Law School offered two other possible relevant statutes.

"Collusion in a federal election with a foreign entity could potentially fall under other crimes, such as against public corruption," Douglas said. "There's also a general anti-coercion federal election law."

In sum, legal experts mentioned four criminal laws that might have been broken. The key is not whether those statutes use the word collusion, but whether the activities of the Russians and Trump associates went beyond permissible acts.