Merged All things Trump + Russia

[Mumbles]

Party over country. if it was Hillary and/or her staff that had done this or suspected to do these things, the 'right' would be demanding her head.

The nice part is - we don't have to imagine it. Simply put, Hillary would not have done this. Obama would never do this. McCain would eat two boots before thinking about doing this. When Gore was given illegally obtained information on the GWB campaign, he contacted the FBI - as in, this actually happened, in reality. GWB...well, I really doubt even he would do this.

But Toupee Fiasco? Oh, he went right for it like a starving fish to a baited hook.

 

[Babbylonian]

Actual evidence. Not the desperate desire for it to be because I really, really, really dislike Hillary.

"Russia" has surpassed Republicans and "Benghazi." it's hysteria on a mass scale.

Oh, you mean a real scandal has surpassed a fake scandal? Heaven forfend!

 

[Mumbles]

I was trying to think along the lines of "what would I do in this situation," and I realized I've actually been in this situation. Russian hackers approached my employer attempting to sell some corporate intelligence on a competitor that they obtained somehow. We reported it to CSIS and they took it from there.

And we're a phone company. Wouldn't an American be even more protective of their elections than I am with something as trivial as wifi footprint?

I'd like to think that high-level campaign workers in any western democracy would know far better than to stand for such obvious corruption - particularly if it's captured in writing. (Link NSFW for language) .

But with these idiots, obviously not. Although I can't say I'm shocked. Trump had little to go for him aside from bigotry three-word slogans, and a national press that had completely abdicated their responsibilities.

 

[NoahFence]

I think it is clear nothing will shake your faith in Dear Leader.

Which makes it all the more enjoyable to those of us who see this coming a mile away.

 

[NoahFence]

Actual evidence. Not the desperate desire for it to be because I really, really, really dislike Hillary.

"Russia" has surpassed Republicans and "Benghazi." it's hysteria on a mass scale.

for good reason.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The DEA would never stoop so low as to arrest someone for admitting they were planning on partaking in drug use without evidence of drug use or drugs.

There are other analogies you know. For example, you can be charged with solicitation of murder and the person you solicit might never actually attempt the murder, could even be an undercover cop.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Please. Let us try to be accurate.

And also to take it easier on Ziggurat. "Collusion" seems to be some sort of trigger word for him.

Not to mention colluding might include things like Kushner sharing computer files and working to set the best dates to release the hacked emails.

While Jr's crime is not collusion but rather trading things for, or even just receiving the stolen information, or expecting to receive information illegally.

These are two different things. And the conspiracy/collusion is being investigated with a lot of circumstantial evidence out there, but by no means has the investigation finished.

 

[LSSBB]

I'd like to think that high-level campaign workers in any western democracy would know far better than to stand for such obvious corruption - particularly if it's captured in writing. (Link NSFW for language) .

But with these idiots, obviously not. Although I can't say I'm shocked. Trump had little to go for him aside from bigotry three-word slogans, and a national press that had completely abdicated their responsibilities.

What responsibilities, the ones to their shareholders?

 

[LSSBB]

I think I see what the problem is. You seem to be operating under a notion of "free speech absolutism" as it applies to the law. In other words: If the action is speech, and nothing else, then it cannot possibly be illegal. This is pretty clearly false, and there are a number of ways to show it.

First, let's go back to the original text of the law:

Under the plainest reading of this section of the law, it is illegal to simply ask a foreign national for a campaign contribution. I am unaware of any serious legal argument, on first amendment grounds, against this application. If you have one in your back pocket, then please share it with the rest of the class. To the best of my knowledge, my interpretation is both commonplace and completely uncontroversial.

But even ignoring this specific issue, we can defer to a number of crimes that typically amount to nothing more than pure speech. Here are some examples that I cam up with right off the top of my head:

* Conspiracy
* Perjury
* Extortion
* Threats and harassment
* TV/VCR repair
* Obstruction of justice

If this is "criminalizing speech," then our entire judicial system, all the way up to the Supreme Court, has severely screwed up the First Amendment. I just don't think that's the case.

Also, intellectual property, for example words under copywrite, are not "free speech" for purposes of reproduction. They have tangible value.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think I see what the problem is. You seem to be operating under a notion of "free speech absolutism" as it applies to the law. In other words: If the action is speech, and nothing else, then it cannot possibly be illegal. This is pretty clearly false, and there are a number of ways to show it.....

You are free to speak but that doesn't mean said speech can have no consequences. You are free to solicit murder, doesn't mean you can't be prosecuted for it. And free speech doesn't technically apply to foreign nationals does it?

The idea you can receive information from a foreign national intended to influence an election and it's just free speech is absurd on its face.

 

[trustbutverify]

Party over country. if it was Hillary and/or her staff that had done this or suspected to do these things, the 'right' would be demanding her head.

Literally, in some cases.

 

[Belz...]

It's only been a couple of exchanges.

That's one more than I expected!

 

[I Am The Scum]

And free speech doesn't technically apply to foreign nationals does it?

For the most part, it actually does. A Canadian tourist, for example, is free to speak his mind while he's in Texas.

However, there are clear exceptions that may be pertinent to this case. There is Supreme Court precedent for treating foreign nationals as a separate class for the sake of campaign contributions, and that this restriction does not conflict with the First Amendment.

We read these cases to set forth a straightforward principle: It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government. It follows, therefore, that the United States has a compelling interest for purposes of First Amendment analysis in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in activities of American democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public...ssion_Civil_No_101766_BMK_RMURMC_2?1499907726

(not a lawyer)

 

[Belz...]

Actual evidence.

Wow! That's quite the explanation. I guess this is the sort of "know it when you see it" kind of stuff, right?

Again: what does it take? The son of Trump and two of the most influential people in his campaign met with a Russian agent to discuss obtaining dirt on Clinton for his father's benefit in Trump tower. If you think that's nothing, then yes, you're ignoring it because you really really don't like the "other side".

 

[varwoche]

Thanks for the ads, I'll re-summarize.

Some people desperately want to impeach Donald Trump because his campaign officials and son did not receive information from a "hostile" power via a citizen with no proven links to the government of said hostile power.

Taking Jr's word on this is utterly preposterous, given that he's lied at every turn.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think I see what the problem is. You seem to be operating under a notion of "free speech absolutism" as it applies to the law. In other words: If the action is speech, and nothing else, then it cannot possibly be illegal. This is pretty clearly false, and there are a number of ways to show it.

First, let's go back to the original text of the law:

Under the plainest reading of this section of the law, it is illegal to simply ask a foreign national for a campaign contribution. I am unaware of any serious legal argument, on first amendment grounds, against this application. If you have one in your back pocket, then please share it with the rest of the class. To the best of my knowledge, my interpretation is both commonplace and completely uncontroversial.

What constitutes a "campaign contribution"? Or more specifically in regards to this law, what constitutes a "thing of value"? That is at the heart of the matter, and there is indeed a good first amendment argument to be made that a "thing of value" cannot include simple speech.

But even ignoring this specific issue, we can defer to a number of crimes that typically amount to nothing more than pure speech. Here are some examples that I cam up with right off the top of my head:

* Conspiracy
* Perjury
* Extortion
* Threats and harassment
* TV/VCR repair
* Obstruction of justice

All of these restrictions pass strict scrutiny, not one of them applies here. Where's the argument that your reading can pass strict scrutiny? How does this prohibition in any way resemble any of the others? It doesn't. It's completely unprecedented.

If this is "criminalizing speech," then our entire judicial system, all the way up to the Supreme Court, has severely screwed up the First Amendment. I just don't think that's the case.

Your conclusion simply doesn't follow. Every exception you point to is very narrow. This prohibition, if interpreted the way you want to, is incredibly broad. Look at some of the examples given in the link of what such a reading would prohibit.

 

[Belz...]

What constitutes a "campaign contribution"?

What do you mean by "constitutes"?

 

[Ziggurat]

One wrong word, yeah.

Speech is the expression of information, not the information itself.

It contains the information. You cannot prohibit the information without prohibiting the speech. And you can't prohibit the speech.

If Trump's campaign team met with this woman, and in total silence she slid them a dossier that contained all the damaging information she claimed to have on Clinton, would you also consider that "speech"?

Yes. Just like the court considers burning a flag or interpretive dance to be "speech".

Although I suppose if you wanted to be super-pedantic, you could argue that it falls under press freedom instead (since it's printed), but that distinction doesn't actually matter in terms of its protection.

 

[Ziggurat]

What do you mean by "constitutes"?

Why do you want hostility between us? I'm used to it by now, but it still makes no sense.

 

[Belz...]

Why do you want hostility between us?

You know, for someone who keeps asking for definitions to every clear words on the internet, you sure love to use hyperbole to muddle the meaning of words, in this case "hostility".

What hostility? I'm trying to show you how annoying your own behaviour is. You call that hostility? If there was any hostility between us -- which there isn't -- it'd be your own doing. That you can't see how your behaviour can be infuriating because it's counter-productive and insulting is nothing short of fascinating.