Merged All things Trump + Russia

[BobTheCoward]

I continue to be amazed at the extent that republicans are willingly accepting Russia working to get a specific person elected as President.

This well beyond "not the party of Eisenhower" and has reached the level of "not the party of Reagan"

Russia's overwhelming support for Trump (irrespective of their work in the election) should have been a huge red flag. As in, "Wait a minute - Russia wants him to be our President? That doesn't sound good." Because communist or not, there's no reason to be thinking that Russia wants what's best for the US.

But if people elect an openly pro Russian, does that mean self perception of US interest aligns with Russia? If not, how do you define a US interest that is not influenced by your perception of what is good for a country?

 

[Mumbles]

Free speech is actually a very good argument. There are a whole host of laws on the books that people think would not survive an appeal to the supreme Court. Having that position is not laughable.

Yes, but this really is not one of them. The FEC has clearly found that this sort of thing is a legal violation, and I have no doubt that it'd hold up in courts, if only because, again, protecting US elections from outside influence has always been a basic principle of the US constitution. This is as much a "free speech" issue as Chelsea Manning's leaks of classified information - it simply does not apply in this situation.

 

[Mumbles]

I have to admit that, from outside the US, this whole deal has been both worrying and incredibly amusing.

I'm amused by Don "Puffy" Combover, but only due to his absurd incompetence. I'm actually far more worried by some people around him - Jeff Sessions' open hostility to civil rights and police reform, and the Voter Suppression All-Stars (which were assembled entirely because Fiasco wants to show that he somehow won the popular vote) attempting to inject steroids into their attempts to attack young and minority voters. These are vastly more important, because they set the stage for a competent version of the current president to step into power.

 

[Childlike Empress]

If you're going to make that case, you have to recognize that 54% of 2016 voters wanted somebody other than Trump, and three million more voted for Clinton than Trump. If you say, "but Electoral College....," then you are qualifying your assessment that "the voters" should get what they want. Only some voters in some places, right?

BS. He's just referring to the rules. It isn't Trump's fault that you have a bizarre electoral procedure that goes back to when delegates had to make dangerous, long travels to attend. One useful thing you "resistance" folks could do with your time is organize a movement for electoral reform. There would be many people across "the isle" for it including your president himself, who has said that if it were one Yankistani, one vote, he would have campaigned very differntly and it would have been even easier to win. Remember what the late Chavez said about Obama: Where are the people taking it to the street to give him the backbone and incentive to do what he promised? They were nowhere to be found.

Get active and stop chasing windmills.

 

[uke2se]

This semantics defense is getting more desperate. I am starting to feel, however, that it's not so much a defense of Trump, but rather a defense against being forced to admit that he's wrong. Mainly to himself.

 

[C_Felix]

This semantics defense is getting more desperate. I am starting to feel, however, that it's not so much a defense of Trump, but rather a defense against being forced to admit that he's wrong. Mainly to himself.

Imagine if the statue stated:

It is illegal to take the life of; to kill another human being.

Some of us round here would claim, "MURDER IS LEGAL! Murder isn't mentioned!"

 

[BobTheCoward]

BS. He's just referring to the rules. It isn't Trump's fault that you have a bizarre electoral procedure that goes back to when delegates had to make dangerous, long travels to attend. One useful thing you "resistance" folks could do with your time is organize a movement for electoral reform. There would be many people across "the isle" for it including your president himself, who has said that if it were one Yankistani, one vote, he would have campaigned very differntly and it would have been even easier to win. Remember what the late Chavez said about Obama: Where are the people taking it to the street to give him the backbone and incentive to do what he promised? They were nowhere to be found.

Get active and stop chasing windmills.

The popular vote also seems to track with opinion polls of him not to mention voting by demographics extrapolated to non voters also doesn't support a broader base than demonstrated in the election.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The popular vote also seems to track with opinion polls of him not to mention voting by demographics extrapolated to non voters also doesn't support a broader base than demonstrated in the election.

He campaigned under the current rules, he would have campaigned differently under different rules. What would have come out of this is parallel universe stuff, but the argument is sound.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, but this really is not one of them. The FEC has clearly found that this sort of thing is a legal violation, and I have no doubt that it'd hold up in courts

Can you point to some specific cases?

 

[NoahFence]

But if people elect an openly pro Russian, does that mean self perception of US interest aligns with Russia? If not, how do you define a US interest that is not influenced by your perception of what is good for a country?

The people were victims of a con. They just didn't pick up on it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The people were victims of a con. They just didn't pick up on it.

What was the con? He was actually pro Russian during the campaign.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's one more than I expected!

Well that's your fault for underestimating me!

Actually, it's really only because you argumemnoned against my initial response, which I thought was only marginally clever, and not worthy of a response at all. And since neither of us is much inclined to let things go... well here we are.

 

[jimbob]

Yes, but this really is not one of them. The FEC has clearly found that this sort of thing is a legal violation, and I have no doubt that it'd hold up in courts, if only because, again, protecting US elections from outside influence has always been a basic principle of the US constitution. This is as much a "free speech" issue as Chelsea Manning's leaks of classified information - it simply does not apply in this situation.

Can you point to some specific cases?

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93762

In MUR 5409 (2004), the Federal Election Commission voted 5-1 to accept the general counsel’s finding that Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform (a corporation) provided a “thing of value” to the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign. It was a list of conservative activists in 37 states. Some of the information may have been publicly available when Norquist gave it to Ken Mehlman of the campaign. The General Counsel found that this was a prohibited corporate contribution and that Bush-Cheney violated the law by failing to report it. But it found the list had so little value that the General Counsel did not recommend pursuing the matter further.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93752

Following up on this post, there are remaining questions about whether providing “dirt” or files related to Hillary Clinton from Russian government sources could be considered a “thing of value” for purposes of the law barring the solicitation of contributions from foreign entities. I’ve already pointed to a 1990 advisory opinion of the FEC so suggesting, in the context of providing polling information (something intangible) free of charge. Here’s another, from 2007, that is even strong on the question of the breadth of the foreign contribution ban, even as to those things whose value may be “difficult to ascertain” (my emphases added):

Question 4. May your authorized committee accept election materials used in previous Canadian campaigns that are provided without charge by Canadian third party candidates?

No, your authorized committee may not accept election materials used in previous Canadian campaigns that are provided without charge by Canadian third party candidates. Your authorized committee may, however, expend campaign funds to purchase the materials. You may also use personal funds to purchase such materials.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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".

This is the kind of thing that makes me question *most* of what is presented as "evidence" these days. Pretty much, any person who was born in Russia, or has friends in Russia, or who can be connected to any person in any level of the Russian government within 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is now considered an "operative" or an "agent".

Whatsisname was paid to be on a show on a Russian TV channel. The channel is funded by the Russian government. Therefore, he took money from the Russian government! Is that how you would cast it if a foreign person was on a show on PBS and got paid for it?

You shouldn't have to dig so deep and engage in so much hyperbole. You've hypothetically got a rampant, far-reaching conspiracy involving large numbers of people, doing incredibly obvious things by all accounts. If it's so broad a conspiracy, it should be easy to find people willing to come clean about it. If it's so obvious and transparent, then solid evidence shouldn't take months of investigation.

That's where I end up being really skeptical. How much of this is genuine wrongdoings of a material nature... and how much is a witch hunt?

 

[Mumbles]

A second, completely obvious, example of how the framers of the constitution openly desired to eliminate outside influence on US behavior - the (in)famous "emoluments clause", forbidding the US president from accepting money or gifts from foreign actors. It's very clear that they wanted the US president to work solely for (some of) the American people, and not for any outside power.

Oddly, this also seems to me to blow a hole in the idea that "money is speech" - it's absurd to claim that the US president is not allowed to speak to foreign heads of state, but he's expressly forbidden from accepting money from them.

 

[Mumbles]

This is the kind of thing that makes me question *most* of what is presented as "evidence" these days. Pretty much, any person who was born in Russia, or has friends in Russia, or who can be connected to any person in any level of the Russian government within 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon is now considered an "operative" or an "agent".

This is more handwaving - Donkey Don Jr was explicitly told that he was meeting with a representative of the Russian government, to be given oppo research as part of Russia's campaign to influence the US presidential election. All of these hypotheticals about "six degrees of whoever" do nothing to change this fact.

"Did you just try to pay a hitman to murder your wife?"

"Yes. What, you're saying I can't give money to anyone now?"

"You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will..."

 

[CapelDodger]

The U.S. actually does have a "pecular" definition of "treason".

English Common Law doesn't distinguish between monarch and country, and treason is committed against the monarch and his dynastic descent. It could be turned against internal opposition. The US being very consciously a country without a monarch it did need a new definition - one which faced it very definitely outward, not inward. You can't commit treason against the President, only the country.

 

[Ziggurat]

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93762

That points to the FEC taking a pretty broad interpretation of "thing of value". But I still think the FEC overstepped their bounds with that decision, and that it wouldn't survive a SCOTUS challenge.

 

[CapelDodger]

The people were victims of a con. They just didn't pick up on it.

Some of those people are driving themselves to distraction trying to convince themselves they weren't conned.

An act of idiocy has become an outbreak of mass insanity, in a matter of months. Quite remarkable.

 

[CapelDodger]

This is more handwaving - Donkey Don Jr was explicitly told that he was meeting with a representative of the Russian government, to be given oppo research as part of Russia's campaign to influence the US presidential election.

Including, as I recall, "official papers".