FBI raids the office of Trump lawyer Michael Cohen

A pretty good example that fits your definition is the charge against Flynn involving Israel and Russia.

Among the statements about which Flynn has admitted lying to the FBI is his depiction of a conversation with the then Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, relating to the run-up to the controversial December 2016 UN security council resolution 2334 on Israeli settlement building – which passed after the Obama administration abstained.

Israel, it was reported widely at the time, had been lobbying the team of then President-elect Trump in an attempt to derail the vote.

And according to the charge sheet against Flynn one of the false statements he has admitted giving to the FBI, was his denial that he had spoken to Kislyak on 22 December 2016 asking Russia to delay the vote on the UN resolution.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/01/michael-flynn-israel-lobbying-russia-united-nations

 

The point being that all of this occurred before Manafort had any affiliation with Trump and these crimes were in fact during a time when Manafort was affiliated with the Podesta Group a Democratic lobbying organization. There is your banana which you've been avoiding.

 

And if true (we never have seen any transcripts) there is no crime in that action.

 

The comedy continues. Here is a hint collusion to commit a crime is criminal conspiracy. Collusion is not a crime. Planning a robbery and committing it is a crime. Planning is not a crime.

 

It would except that during the campaign he switched to bank fraud. He continued this into 2017.
No banana. It's an apple.

 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/362746-read-the-special-counsels-charges-against-flynn
Having either of these conversations broke the law.

 

Do you guys ever wonder why in like a case like colluding with Russia over the Israel vote, Flynn turned to Russia for help? Why not Britain, France or China?

 

Sure he did. And Trump masterminded the whole thing. What a joke.

 

That’s absurd.

 

Fantasy land. ^^

 

Ahh, three nothings in a row. I guess we are done here.

 

It has been reported Hannity was involved in a company that purchased 870 foreclosed homes in seven different States for $90 million using HUD grants. Do you still think anyone who ever had anything to do with Cohen has not become a "person of interest" in Mueller's investigation? How is that attorney-client privilege working for you?

Who do you think is leaking this?

 

The entire thing is nothing unless you suffer from TDS.

 

Planning a terrorist strike is a crime. So bye bye to your redherring.
And again... I SOURCED that colluding is a crime, with a source VERY high up in the US justice system.

 

No it's not. Executing a terrorist strike is a crime.

And again - collusion is not a crime. Period. You don't understand what your link says.

 

I think it's you that doesn't understand it.
Working in concert with the Russians to commit a crime is collusion.
The crime is interference colluding is working with the Russians.
He could have done almost anything in the election without committing a crime if he had not been colluding with the Russians.
Therefore Manafort was colluding with the Russians and he is being charged for it.

Allegations that Paul Manafort:

Committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United States law;


The second point shows Mueller’s authority to bring the case that he did against Manafort, but the real news is in the first point. That statement could not be clearer that Mueller can examine whether a member of the Trump campaign and the Russians were “colluding,” and thus working together “in violation of United States law.” In other words, according to Rosenstein, collusion would be a crime.

 

Yes it is... lol. Here, have some more proof.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...-Trump-Israel-Palestine-Jerusalem-news-latest

I proved that it is. You claim that you know better. Proved you wrong twice now.

 

He was arrested and law enforcement is looking at any criminal activity. That’s not proof of anything yet.

You have shown I’m correct twice. Keep it up.

 

If you keep it up you can soon say he is filing for appeal so it's not done yet.

(CNN)A former US Marine suspected of plotting a Christmas holiday terror attack on a popular San Francisco tourist destination was indicted Thursday by a grand jury.

Everitt Aaron Jameson said he wanted to use pipe bombs to "funnel people into an area in order to shoot them," at Pier 39, according to the federal indictment.
Jameson, 26 of Modesto, California, was indicted on one count each of attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, and distribution of information relating to destructive devices, according to court papers.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/05/us/san-francisco-terror-suspect-indicted/index.html

 

He was indicted for committing crimes. He was not indicted for planning to do so. Read your post with understanding.

 

Jameson, 26 of Modesto, California, was indicted on one count each of attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, and distribution of information relating to destructive devices, according to court papers.
Edit:
Kind of like attempting to get dirt on Clinton from a foreign government.

 

What he actually did is a crime. You have no idea of the details. And again planning is not a crime. You’ve proven my point again.

 

Going for 3 in a row again?

 

You’ve done it. Planning and collusion are not crimes.

 

Collusion is like conspiracy, some actual "step in furtherance" must be shown to find a crime, merely meeting may be enough, if the intent to criminally conspire can be shown. In the meeting with that Russian lawyer at Trump Tower I think it is evident she sought to induce attendance falsely claiming to have 'dirt' on Hillary, and it looks like Kushner thought this was what he was meeting her for, so maybe Mueller could show a conspiracy or collusion. I think this depends on what the Russian lawyer can be shown to have offered whoever set up the meeting.