Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
You are talking about the ads as they appeared. Im talking about the ads as described here. Notice I never said just "the ads" but said "described.
Click to expand...

The ads as described focused on issues and didn't advocate for or against a specific candidate. Hence, they were not electioneering communications, a requirement that the WaPo article conveniently snipped off the end of the sentence in the statute.

Furthermore, an electioneering communication must be broadcast within 60 days of a general election or within 30 days of a primary election. The former is extremely unlikely given the ads didn't continue past May 2016. As to the latter, it's a possibility that there was a violation of the statute if one of the ads occurred after Jan 1, 2016 and made explicit reference to one of the announced candidates in the primaries.

Even so, I think the electioneering communication restriction on foreigners would meet the same fate in the Supreme Court as the restriction on corporations did. See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
 
BadBoy said:
:jaw::jaw::jaw::jaw::jaw::jaw::jaw::jaw::jaw::jaw::jaw::jaw:

Are you living on another planet?
Click to expand...

I should amend my answer. The claim that a search warrant issued was not just in a previous sentence; it was actually in the sub-headline, completely separated from the article itself. I don't think a reasonable person could possibly think that CNN was implying its source was referring back to the claim in the sub-headline.

Unless that reasonable person was being disingenuous of course.
 
sunmaster14 said:
The ads as described focused on issues and didn't advocate for or against a specific candidate. Hence, they were not electioneering communications, a requirement that the WaPo article conveniently snipped off the end of the sentence in the statute.
Click to expand...

You are describing the ads that appeared. My post didn't assume noahfence was accurately relating what the ads were. My post was responding to the worse perception of the ads imagined as it doesn't affect my position that they should be legal.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I should amend my answer. The claim that a search warrant issued was not just in a previous sentence; it was actually in the sub-headline, completely separated from the article itself. I don't think a reasonable person could possibly think that CNN was implying its source was referring back to the claim in the sub-headline.

Unless that reasonable person was being disingenuous of course.
Click to expand...
Based on what I read, it seems reasonable. You sound unreasonable, don't give up your day job. Your argument shows your not seeking the truth by using your critical analysis skills. You sound like a person with an agenda imho.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Come with me here. Trump is perhaps the single most hated politician in our lifetime. I mean, seriously hated by a large number of people. People who are near desperate to get him out of office any way they can.

Do you disagree with that assessment?

We have had repeated accusations of all sorts, supported by speculative reasoning and anonymous sources.

Do you disagree with that?

Trump and his administration have been being investigated in some fashion or other, by the media as well as by formal channels since before he took office.

Do you disagree with that?

Now... Of all of those lines of investigation, which have been found to be true and damaging to Trump? Which of the accusations has panned out over the course of the last 10 months?

Does it make any sense at all to conclude that the accusations have been accurate, and that solid corroborating evidence has been found... and that this information has NOT been shared by the media? Given the prominence of Trump in the media and the consistency of accusation leveled at him, and the volume of anonymous confidential insider information being provided to the media that represents Trump negatively... what possible reason is there to assume that any of the accusations has been corroborated but nobody is sharing that information? What sense would that make?

That's not to say that all of the investigations are concluded - they aren't. But of all of the many different investigative routes so far brought forth for consideration, they don't seem to have borne fruit.
Click to expand...

Some unsupported assertions followed by a giant argument from incredulity. Yawn.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/latest-scoops-cnn-and-new-york-times-quick-and-dirty-analysis
 
sunmaster14 said:
The ads as described focused on issues and didn't advocate for or against a specific candidate. Hence, they were not electioneering communications, a requirement that the WaPo article conveniently snipped off the end of the sentence in the statute.
Click to expand...

Did you really get fooled by them, or are you seriously missing the how's and why's of those ads? They're all propaganda. I guess if a person is getting sucked into buying all these idiotic ads it's hard to see them for what they were.


Stay tuned. It'll all be explained in the end.
 
NoahFence said:
Did you really get fooled by them, or are you seriously missing the how's and why's of those ads? They're all propaganda. I guess if a person is getting sucked into buying all these idiotic ads it's hard to see them for what they were.


Stay tuned. It'll all be explained in the end.
Click to expand...

We have been through this with 501c organizations. It doesn't matter if an ad implicitly favors one candidate. Issue ads are still permitted and not electioneering.
 
NoahFence said:
Did you really get fooled by them, or are you seriously missing the how's and why's of those ads? They're all propaganda. I guess if a person is getting sucked into buying all these idiotic ads it's hard to see them for what they were.
Click to expand...

Propaganda is not illegal. If it were, the NY Times and WaPo would have been shutdown decades ago.
 
NoahFence said:
Are you sure "is allowed to purchase" isn't just some nebulous, artifical concept?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It is just some nebulous artificial concept.

ETA: it is partially why I have come out directly in favor of foreign governments engaging in directly electioneering.
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
If Manafort is being indicted, and it's still quite speculative at this point, even if Mueller's people really did tell Manafort he would be indicted, it's likely for illegal lobbying or financial shenanigans before he was involved in Trump's campaign. Still a nothingburger that is.
Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that.

Meanwhile, in the real world, it's starting to look like 45s claim of wiretapping may be based on recordings that that Mueller had of him and Manafort.

But, yeah, probably nothing. :rolleyes:
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Keep telling yourself that.

Meanwhile, in the real world, it's starting to look like 45s claim of wiretapping may be based on recordings that that Mueller had of him and Manafort.

But, yeah, probably nothing. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Or the wiretapping thing could be just making it up. I'm sure we all have family members that do that. They may even be A) elderly and B) Fox News fans.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Or the wiretapping thing could be just making it up. I'm sure we all have family members that do that. They may even be A) elderly and B) Fox News fans.
Click to expand...

Did I miss a thread or discussion about the revelation that Manafort was wiretapped? (According to CNN, Fox and a bunch of other sources.) I expected more.

My response to someone on Facebook claiming that the commander-in-ept is now vindicated with his wiretapping claim by Manfort actually being wiretapped.

"Yes, there was wire-tapping, but before you start manually gratifying yourself and others on your side of the aisle, keep this in mind: A FISA court thought there was enough evidence of wrong-doing to allow the wiretapping."

And then my cousin responded, "Here come all the FISA court experts and Constitutional scholars..."
 
C_Felix said:
Did I miss a thread or discussion about the revelation that Manafort was wiretapped? (According to CNN, Fox and a bunch of other sources.) I expected more.

My response to someone on Facebook claiming that the commander-in-ept is now vindicated with his wiretapping claim by Manfort actually being wiretapped.

"Yes, there was wire-tapping, but before you start manually gratifying yourself and others on your side of the aisle, keep this in mind: A FISA court thought there was enough evidence of wrong-doing to allow the wiretapping."

And then my cousin responded, "Here come all the FISA court experts and Constitutional scholars..."
Click to expand...


Regardless, the FISA court ("FISC") has a track record of being a rubber stamp.

But the FISC has declined just 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance requests made by the government in 33 years, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. That’s a rate of .03 percent, which raises questions about just how much judicial oversight is actually being provided.
Click to expand...

I think the fact that Manafort was wiretapped might tell us more about the people in charge of the FBI than it does about Manafort.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom