Cont: Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
That other nations or foreigners might want to influence our elections I think is a given. Meeting with the campaign manager, his deputy, the candidates offspring and son in law in the middle of a National Presidential campaign to deliver dirt on the opposition is beyond the pale.
Click to expand...

Bertrand Russell could not have stated it better [/Trout fishing in America]
 
acbytesla said:
No, that's probably illegal as well. Hiring foreign nationals for your campaign is dubious.
But that really depends on their service. If Chin offers you a good price on MAGA hats, no problem. But if Ivan, who works for the Kremlin says he has been working with Russian hackers who may have hacked into the DNC, it seems likely illegal. Don't you think?
Click to expand...
Sure, because you'd be hiring the foreign national to provide an illegal service. I think it would be illegal to hire a citizen to perform illegal services. It's not that the employee is foreign that is the problem there, IOW.

But hiring a foreign citizen who is connected to foreign intelligence and has a way to gather information on opponents . . . that's where the confusion is. If it isn't illegal for the Clinton campaign to pay Steele for dirt then I don't see how it's illegal for the Trump campaign to meet a Russian citizen for dirt. That would only be illegal if the Trump campaign promised a quid pro quo: You help us and we help Russia itself when we are in power. It would be similarly bad if Clinton's campaign promised England certain things in return for helping Steele gather information.

What troubles me so much about the meeting etc, is we don't know what actually took place and what the Russians provided. But we do know this. Paul Manafort who was in that meeting was having regular conversations with an agent of the Kremlin before and after. We know that computer hacking escalated considerably following the meeting. We do know that Trump is alienating long time US allies and is bending over backwards for Russia.

Coincidence? I think not.
Click to expand...
But all that is really moot. Manafort isn't being tried for anything to do with his helping Russia. We can speculate all we want about how this trial is an attempt to flip him or whatever but the fact is that he is being tried for unrelated tax fraud and financial shenanigans. If he is convicted for that, is there going to then be yet another trial against Manafort directly concerning Russian shenanigans?
 
Ziggurat said:
Are you talking about this post?

Yeah, no. I don't think speech qualifies as a "thing of value". And again, this legal theory would catch the Steele dossier as being criminal as well. I don't buy it, it's not credible.
Click to expand...

The Steele dossier was a product overtly paid for, not a donation or a "gift".

The law's header reads "Contributions and donations by foreign nationals".

What do you think is the reasoning behind the prohibition on accepting donations/gifts/etc from foreign nationals, or soliciting them?
 
Last edited:
Trump Tweets

"This is an illegally brought Rigged Witch Hunt run by people who are totally corrupt and/or conflicted. It was started and paid for by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats. Phony Dossier, FISA disgrace and so many lying and dishonest people already fired. 17 Angry Dems? Stay tuned!"


“There has been no evidence whatsoever that Donald Trump or the campaign was involved in any kind of collusion to fix the 2016 election. In fact the evidence is the opposite, that Hillary Clinton & the Democrats colluded with the Russians to fix the 2016 election.” @GrahamLedger"
 
acbytesla said:
Engaging in a little reductio ad absurdum I see.

Really, you don't think holding fair elections free from foreign interference and influence isn't a proper function of our government?
Click to expand...

No. It is never the proper function of government to do something which is not possible to do.

So why do we have countless laws prohibiting their influence?
Click to expand...

They prohibit specific forms of influence. The do not, and cannot, prohibit any and all forms of influence. Nor should they, if you consider things rationally.

For example, suppose candidate A proposes imposing a large tariff on all imports from country X. The president of country X points out that they buy $Y in goods from us, and promises retaliatory tariffs that would cost us $Z. This could influence the election. Moreover, it should be able to influence the election, since it's potentially useful information for voters to know and consider.

Why then is it ok for a candidate to accept a contribution from a US citizen and it is illegal to accept one for a foreign national or government?
Click to expand...

You cannot categorize mere speech as a "contribution" subject to regulation.

That other nations or foreigners might want to influence our elections I think is a given.
Click to expand...

Sure.

Meeting with the campaign manager, his deputy, the candidates offspring and son in law in the middle of a National Presidential campaign to deliver dirt on the opposition is beyond the pale.
Click to expand...

Why? And why is that worse than doing so through an intermediary, as Hillary did?
 
kellyb said:
The Steele dossier was a product overtly paid for, not a donation or a "gift".
Click to expand...

Is it your theory that if the Trump campaign had paid the Russians for dirt, then it would have been OK? That it's the lack of payment that creates the legal jeopardy in this case?

I find that... strange.
 
Ziggurat said:
Is it your theory that if the Trump campaign had paid the Russians for dirt, then it would have been OK? That it's the lack of payment that creates the legal jeopardy in this case?

I find that... strange.
Click to expand...

Yes.

It is strange in a way, but it really does make sense in a way, too.
 
kellyb said:
Yes.

It is strange in a way, but it really does make sense in a way, too.
Click to expand...

OK, let's suppose that if the Trump campaign had paid those Russians for dirt on Hillary, everything would have been fine, but if they got dirt without paying for it, then it would be illegal.

Since no dirt was actually given, and may not have even existed, how do you prove that the Trump campaign wouldn't have paid for it if it had been given? And how much money would they have to give? What if they only paid 1 cent?

If you go into a store and ask if they have hammers, and they say no and you leave, can you be charged with attempted theft? You didn't say you would pay for one, after all.
 
Last edited:
David Frum comments on a tweet and then quotes it:

Sigh. This once seemingly mind-crushingly obvious point is the thing we're doomed to spend the summer and fall arguing about, it seems:

"No, if you hire someone to SPY on the Russian Govt, that is NOT the same as working WITH the Russian Govt."
Click to expand...
 
He did give the dossier to the US intelligence community, not the FSB
 
Beelzebuddy said:
"Okay, yer honor, maybe I did pick up the dame expectin her ta be a prostitute an not an undercover cop. Okay, my bad, mean culpa amirite? But see here's the thing: I didn't have sex with her, did I? Think about it. Don't that make her not a prostitute, I mean no harm no foul, right?"
Click to expand...

Decent analogy... but it's not solicitation until money changes hands. It doesn't matter what the guy says, even if it's horribly blatant and explicit... until he exchanges money for the offer of sex, it's not illegal. The fact that the undercover cop offered sex for money, and that he went into the hotel room expecting to get sex for money is irrelevant until a transaction occurs.

So in this case, the fact that someone offered them information, and that they went to the meeting expecting information may not matter. Of course, IANAL and I don't have any knowledge of whether any information did or did not materialize. But an expectation by itself may not be sufficient for a claim of conspiracy. And beyond that, in order to pursue the "item of value" angle, I would suppose that proof of an item must exist, rather than just the expectation of an item.

Either way, I agree that the meeting shouldn't have happened, and that it indicates a willingness to do things that they should know that they ought not to be doing. I'm just not certain that it is in any fashion sufficient as evidence in any meaningful fashion.
 
acbytesla said:
r nations or foreigners might want to influence our elections I think is a given. Meeting with the campaign manager, his deputy, the candidates offspring and son in law in the middle of a National Presidential campaign to deliver dirt on the opposition is beyond the pale.
Click to expand...

Is it specifically the delivering of dirt that you object to? Or is it the meeting with campaign personnel?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/18/obama.trip/index.html

Sat July 19, 2008

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is in Afghanistan on a multistop overseas trip for meetings with international leaders but with an eye on the U.S. presidential race back home.

Sen. Barack Obama is expected to visit several world leaders over the next few weeks.

Obama's trip, which includes visits to Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and the United Kingdom, is intended to bolster his foreign policy credentials before U.S. voters.
Click to expand...

Meeting with foreign countries and their representatives seems to be a fairly standard part of campaigning for president, and doing so is certainly intended to foster good relations with those countries and to set the groundwork for policy-making in the future as it affects those countries.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Meeting with foreign countries and their representatives seems to be a fairly standard part of campaigning for president, and doing so is certainly intended to foster good relations with those countries and to set the groundwork for policy-making in the future as it affects those countries.
Click to expand...

If this is true, and everything about this meeting was above board and legal, then ask yourself this, why the cover up?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom