Merged All things Trump + Russia

[Ziggurat]

Not so hard? You called my original question hostile and took a great number of vitriolic posts to finally decide to answer. Seems it was pretty hard.

But it wasn't your original question. You posted many before. At no stage in any of this have you ever been honest.

And even here, you're hypocritical. Your own response to my question was a great number of vitriolic posts, and you never answered.

 

[Belz...]

But it wasn't your original question. You posted many before.

I meant the original time I asked this question.

At no stage in any of this have you ever been honest.

I'm starting to think that you don't know what "honest" means, now.

And even here, you're hypocritical.

No, I'm not. However, you've missed the point of the question entirely. At first by derailing the discussing, and now by answering the question rather than understanding why it was asked in the first place.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, I'm not. However, you've missed the point of the question entirely. At first by derailing the discussing, and now by answering the question rather than understanding why it was asked in the first place.

You already told me why you asked it: to annoy me. Nevertheless, I answered it. And you have still never answered mine, and have consistently lied about why I asked it.

You said you wouldn't get sidetracked, but here we are again, sidetracked. That too was a lie.

From the start, the derail here was yours, not mine.

 

[timhau]

Just wondering: what comes after semantics? E-mails? Pedophiles at a pizzeria?

 

[Belz...]

You already told me why you asked it: to annoy me.

No, that's another lie. I specifically said that I asked it to educate you and help you correct your behaviour. Unless you find that annoying, which I can't help.

 

[Belz...]

Just wondering: what comes after semantics?

Winter semantics two years later?

 

[uke2se]

Just wondering: what comes after semantics? E-mails? Pedophiles at a pizzeria?

After semantics we're back at "Hillary did it too". Then we'll have another long run of that, and then it's back to semantics. Anything to avoid settling to the fact that collusion conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia is now a fact.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Sure. And I never said that speech could never be criminalized. But it requires a very heavy burden to be met. There must be compelling state interest, and the restrictions must be narrowly construed to be minimally restrictive. That is present in the case of criminalized conspiracy. That is not present here.

Yes it is. The clear implication is that the purpose of the meeting was to trade dirt on Hillary -- a thing of obvious value for the purpose of electing Trump -- for some favor from a potential Trump administration. If the Russians simply wanted to hurt Hillary, gratis, they could have just released what they had; there would be no reason for a secret meeting with Trump people. Furthermore, there is mens rea ("guilty knowledge") implied by initially trying to hide the meeting and then lying about its nature.

And how could you possibly think that there isn't a "compelling state interest" in protecting itself from foreign influence?

 

[Ziggurat]

No, that's another lie. I specifically said that I asked it to educate you and help you correct your behaviour. Unless you find that annoying, which I can't help.

You categorized it as annoying yourself. That's not a lie, that's your own words.

 

[Belz...]

Yes it is. The clear implication is that the purpose of the meeting was to trade dirt on Hillary -- a thing of obvious value for the purpose of electing Trump -- for some favor from a potential Trump administration. If the Russians simply wanted to hurt Hillary, gratis, they could have just released what they had; there would be no reason for a secret meeting with Trump people. Furthermore, there is mens rea ("guilty knowledge") implied by initially trying to hide the meeting and then lying about its nature.

And how could you possibly think that there isn't a "compelling state interest" in protecting itself from foreign influence?

Well, again, it really depends on what you mean by "compelling", eh?

 

[Belz...]

You categorized it as annoying yourself. That's not a lie, that's your own words.

I categorised it as annoying to me. It doesn't change the stated purpose of the demonstration. It's up to you to follow my suggestion or remain a negative contributor to the discussion.

 

[CapelDodger]

Trump says that the fact that we heard of Russia's involvement is proof that Putin had nothing to do with it? He might be right, but Putin's personal involvement is kind of irrelevant.

Quite. That said, I think Putin would be pretty miffed to discover he'd been kept out of the loop on something like this.

 

[trustbutverify]

After semantics we're back at "Hillary did it too". Then we'll have another long run of that, and then it's back to semantics. Anything to avoid settling to the fact that collusion conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia is now a fact.

Hillary did it, followed by Reagan did it, followed by so what if he did it, followed by we're glad he did it.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes it is. The clear implication is that the purpose of the meeting was to trade dirt on Hillary -- a thing of obvious value for the purpose of electing Trump -- for some favor from a potential Trump administration. If the Russians simply wanted to hurt Hillary, gratis, they could have just released what they had; there would be no reason for a secret meeting with Trump people. Furthermore, there is mens rea ("guilty knowledge") implied by initially trying to hide the meeting and then lying about its nature.

That.

And how could you possibly think that there isn't a "compelling state interest" in protecting itself from foreign influence?

It's not about thinking it, it's about arguing it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes it is. The clear implication is that the purpose of the meeting was to trade dirt on Hillary

The state has no compelling interest in preventing people from spreading "dirt" on a candidate. In fact, allowing people to transmit information that a politician doesn't like is precisely one of the reasons we have the 1st amendment to begin with.

If the Russians simply wanted to hurt Hillary, gratis, they could have just released what they had; there would be no reason for a secret meeting with Trump people.

Perhaps, but the reading of the law under which this is supposedly criminal wouldn't have changed at all if the meeting was not secret.

Furthermore, there is mens rea ("guilty knowledge") implied by initially trying to hide the meeting and then lying about its nature.

That's not relevant if the action isn't prohibited to begin with.

And how could you possibly think that there isn't a "compelling state interest" in protecting itself from foreign influence?

First off, as a practical matter the state cannot protect itself against any foreign influence. Second, it's not clear that we should, even if we could. Third, the statutes do not protect against all forms of foreign influence, only very specific kinds. And lastly, there is a much higher burden for statutes that restrict speech than there is for statutes that restrict most other actions. That the state can meet that burden in many non-speech cases doesn't mean that they could meet it about speech such as this.

 

[Belz...]

The state has no compelling interest in preventing people from spreading "dirt" on a candidate. In fact, allowing people to transmit information that a politician doesn't like is precisely one of the reasons we have the 1st amendment to begin with.

You don't think that the presence of actors from a foreign government changes this dynamic a bit?

 

[Ziggurat]

I categorised it as annoying to me. It doesn't change the stated purpose of the demonstration.

Yes, it was supposedly to teach me a lesson. And the way you would do that, according to the plain meaning of your own posts, was by annoying me, like you felt annoyed. That you hoped to accomplish something by annoying me doesn't change the fact that you were trying to annoy me. That's not a lie, that's what you told me.

So how'd that work out? Did I learn my lesson?

It's up to you to follow my suggestion or remain a negative contributor to the discussion.

There has been no real discussion between us since you took offense to being asked for clarification. The derail was yours, not mine.

 

[NoahFence]

Christ.
Get a room guys

 

[Ziggurat]

You don't think that the presence of actors from a foreign government changes this dynamic a bit?

The statute in question makes no mention of foreign governments, so from a legal standpoint, no, obviously the presence of actors from a foreign government cannot change the dynamic at all.

How it affects your personal feelings of the mater is a different issue, and I make no claims about how you should feel about it.

 

[Belz...]

How it affects your personal feelings of the mater is a different issue, and I make no claims about how you should feel about it.

I'm not sure that I have any feelings about it. From my understanding, going to that meeting was illegal in and of itself, based on the knowledge that the actors had of what was supposed to transpire there.