Merged All things Trump + Russia

[Ziggurat]

For one, there's this thing called "espionage."

Trump Jr. wasn't engaged in espionage. And just like newspapers don't have legal liability for publishing classified information that was illegally leaked to them, Trump Jr. would have no legal liability for publicizing information that was illegally obtained through espionage either. And lastly, the source being Russia doesn't suffice to make information they have "espionage".

 

[johnny karate]

That's what Hillary's camp tried to do with Ukraine.

You keep repeating this assertion.

Who from "Hillary's camp" colluded with the Ukrainian government to influence the election?

Please consult your Official Fox News Talking Points and get back to us.

 

[Ziggurat]

What's the "tell"?

That everybody is using the same word, "collude", but nobody actually knows what it means.

And what does the "tell" tell you?

That the argument is bull ****.

 

[Elagabalus]

Pertinent to what, exactly? Affecting the election? Sure. And? That's what campaigns do, they try to affect the election. That's their entire purpose. That's what Hillary's camp tried to do with Ukraine. You might find it distasteful, but is it fundamentally different than when a tabloid exposes a sex scandal of a candidate? Not really.

You were concentrating on the idea that the offered information was obtained illegally. It may have been obtained legally and still be damning for Trump Jr. et al.

 

[johnny karate]

I'm not particularly comfortable with either, I just find the ****show put on by the left bewildering entertaining when the other party does it.

Wait... high-ranking members of the Clinton campaign met with representatives of a hostile foreign power to conspire to influence the outcome of the election?

Wow, that's quite a bombshell.

Got a link to the story?

 

[Bogative]

Where did you get the idea Chalupa was a party loyalist? She was an activist for her Ukrainian homeland.

She was an "activist" being paid to report her findings, some of which could have came directly from the Ukrainian government, to the DNC. When she found out Manafort was being hired by Trump, what she had found in her research did not lead her to Trump's campaign or the RNC(that I'm aware of) to warn them of Manafort's connections to Russia, she went to the DNC and Clinton's campaign.

That and the politico article.

Manafort’s work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC’s arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world.

Honestly, the contortions needed here to make this false equivalence ignore the biggest difference, not to mention all the details that weren't equivalent.

Russia interfered in the campaign big time, on multiple levels from hacking the DNC to hacking into voter databases. They implemented a rather extensive fake news campaign on social media.

The contortions used to decide the equivalencies are false must be giving you a headache. Chalupa was sharing her discussions with the Ukrainian ambassador's top aid with the DNC/Clinton campaign.

Trump Jr had a meeting with a lawyer that was not connected(without playing 6 degrees of Vladimir Putin) to the Russian government.

 

[blutoski]

Let's see you apply that standard to Hillary's campaign and their collusion with Ukraine. This reasoning is simply pretext, nothing about the criticism is at all consistent or even honest.

Are you giving up on this one? Changing the topic? (this is a skeptic forum, we've heard of tu coque fallacy)

Or because nothing came of it.

No, because he wouldn't know at the time. Nothing comes of any crime if they go unreported, but that's not a rationale for neglecting to report crimes.

 

[skyeagle409]

That everybody is using the same word, "collude", but nobody actually knows what it means.
.

Collude

When you collude with someone you secretly plot together to do something bad.

The word collude entered English in the 16th century from the Latin word colludere, meaning “have a secret agreement,” a combination of col-, meaning “together,” and ludere, meaning “to play.” When you collude with someone, it's like you’re playing together on the same team for the purpose of getting something you want, typically something illegal or harmful. Companies may collude to keep prices high, or politicians may collude to keep damaging information secret.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/collude

 

[Ziggurat]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

You asked for the text of the law. There you go. I've hilited the portion that is most relevant.

If you think that asking someone to perform an illegal act transgresses the first amendment, then I'd like to hear your argument.

No, that's not the argument. It's not about asking people to perform an illegal act. It's about whether providing information can itself be an illegal act. And generally, it cannot be, because that infringes upon 1st amendment. There are a few exceptions, such as classified information. But even there, it's the people who promised to keep that information secure as a condition of official access who have such legal liability. Third parties such as newspapers are not prohibited from re-publishing classified information once they have obtained it.

In short, I do not think it is constitutional to read "thing of value" to include mere speech.

 

[Belz...]

As opposed to knee-jerk refusal to define your terms mode?

Not only is that response completely nonsensical (how can one knee-jerk not do something?) but it's shown wrong by the fact that I told you already that someone has defined it in this thread in response to your request. So you're lying and being nonsensical at the same time.

 

[Childlike Empress]

And lastly, the source being Russia doesn't suffice to make information they have "espionage".

Apparently some have been conditioned so much that they believe the US is literally at war with Russia.

 

[johnny karate]

That everybody is using the same word, "collude", but nobody actually knows what it means.

Why does it matter if anyone in this thread can provide the definition to "collude" to your satisfaction?

That the argument is bull ****.

So just so we're clear, if someone makes an argument, but refuses to substantiate aspects of that argument to a random person's satisfaction, that makes the argument "bull ****"?

Good to know.

 

[skyeagle409]

No, that's not the argument. It's not about asking people to perform an illegal act. It's about whether providing information can itself be an illegal act.

Let's take a look here.

Did Trump Jr. Break Laws When He Met Russian Lawyer Veselnitskaya?

The relevant statute — 52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510 — bars foreign nationals from making any "contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value" in connection with any election. It also says no American "shall knowingly solicit, accept or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation" in connection with any election.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/did-donald-trump-jr-break-any-laws-when-he-met-n782026

 

[Ziggurat]

Collude

When you collude with someone you secretly plot together to do something bad.

OK, let's work with this definition. First, is collusion illegal? No, not in and of itself. One could collude to do something illegal, but since plenty of "bad" things are not illegal, collusion itself isn't illegal either.

So did Trump Jr. collude with the Russians? Clearly some people believe so, but that's not an open and shut case either. One has to establish that what they were doing was bad, and that's not actually trivial.

But what were they doing? The Russians promised to provide information damaging to Hillary. Had they done so, would this have been bad? For Hillary, sure, but it's not axiomatically true that this would have been bad for the public. If it was, for example, evidence of Hillary doing something illegal (like approving that uranium deal in exchange for money), then arguably making this information public might be good for the public. If it was naked selfies of Hillary, then publishing them would be bad for the public.

But as far as we can tell, no information actually changed hands. So there's not much to evaluate for goodness or badness. Whether you think he would have done something bad with the Russians becomes largely a matter of whatever your pre-existing view of Trump Jr. is. But it appears that things never reached the point at which Trump Jr. was even in a position to determine whether cooperating with the Russians was a good thing or a bad thing.

 

[skyeagle409]

OK, let's work with this definition. First, is collusion illegal?

What does the law say about collusion in regard to US elections? What did Trump, Jr. do? In other words, what was the basis of his meeting?

 

[uke2se]

While it's cute that the right wingers have finally managed to stop flailing aimlessly and started forming a line of defense, it is a particularly turgid defense, and you right wingers on these boards should be deeply ashamed of yourselves.

Your fuhrer played with the Ruskies. He's guilty as sin. It's time to impeach and replace.

 

[Ziggurat]

Let's take a look here.

I Am The Scum already posted the text of the law. And I already responded. If you read "thing of value" as including speech, then you've criminalized speech, and I don't see how that can possibly survive 1st amendment scrutiny.

 

[Elagabalus]

...Trump Jr had a meeting with a lawyer that was not connected(without playing 6 degrees of Vladimir Putin) to the Russian government.

That he also neglected to mention on his security clearance questionnaire.

 

[johnny karate]

The contortions used to decide the equivalencies are false must be giving you a headache. Chalupa was sharing her discussions with the Ukrainian ambassador's top aid with the DNC/Clinton campaign.

What discussions? What specific information was imparted during these discussions? What information did Chalupa provide to the Clinton campaign from these discussions? To whom did she provide it? How did the Clinton campaign act on this information? In what way did it influence the election?

Trump Jr had a meeting with a lawyer he believed was connected to that was not connected(without playing 6 degrees of Vladimir Putin) to the Russian government.

FTFY

 

[Ziggurat]

What does the law say about collusion in regard to US elections?

Nothing. The term as you defined it is too broad to be legally meaningful.