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

[kellyb]

This is circular logic. You're justifying criminalizing speech because the speech is a crime. Why is that speech a crime? Because you criminalized it, which you can do because it's a crime, which it is because you criminalized it, which....

Nobody's criminalizing speech. It was a meeting about getting "the goods" (information) on an opponent to help him win the election.

 

[kellyb]

.
Imagine that some foreign national had proof that Trump conspired with Putin to hack voting machines for 2020. Would you want it to be illegal for that foreign national to tell that to the Democratic candidate's campaign? Or would that be the sort of information that would be important for voters to know, and therefore should be legally protected as well?

The anti-Trump position here seems to have no concept of how their own argument could come back to bite them on the ass.

If the foreigner knows of an impending crime of that nature, they need to go right to the FBI, not "gift" the info to a political ally of theirs competing with the aspiring criminal.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Nobody's criminalizing speech. It was a meeting about getting "the goods" (information) on an opponent to help him win the election.

At no point was the nature of the goods explained. It could have been someone sharing information from personal experience.

 

[kellyb]

At no point was the nature of the goods explained. It could have been someone sharing information from personal experience.

Hell if I know, honestly. I don't think so, but we'll see what case, if any, Mueller makes there.

 

[acbytesla]

Delete

 

[acbytesla]

This is like arguing that since you can't legally threaten to kill someone, the first amendment doesn't actually protect speech. Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand the issue?

You really can't see the first amendment problem with such an interpretation? Foreign nationals within the US have first amendment rights.

No. It is you that keeps expanding first Amendment protections to illegal acts not the other way around.

If some Russian published dirt about Hillary Clinton on their own then that would be free speech.

However, meeting with the Trump campaign to coordinate the release of that dirt so they might be indebted to the Russians would not be.protected free speech.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nobody's criminalizing speech. It was a meeting about getting "the goods" (information) on an opponent to help him win the election.

Are you under the impression that speech isn't information? And the motives of speech don't make it not speech.

 

[Ziggurat]

If the foreigner knows of an impending crime of that nature, they need to go right to the FBI, not "gift" the info to a political ally of theirs competing with the aspiring criminal.

And what if they don't trust the FBI? What if they think the FBI has been compromised by the President?

Moreover, we do not criminalize actions on the basis that they aren't optimal.

 

[kellyb]

Are you under the impression that speech isn't information? And the motives of speech don't make it not speech.

The nature of the speech can very much make it non-protected speech. "Selective disclosure" "speech" is an example. https://www.sec.gov/news/extra/sdiscfaq.htm

 

[kellyb]

And what if they don't trust the FBI? What if they think the FBI has been compromised by the President?

Moreover, we do not criminalize actions on the basis that they aren't optimal.

You realize this is getting really, really outlandish, right?

 

[acbytesla]

And what if they don't trust the FBI? What if they think the FBI has been compromised by the President?

Moreover, we do not criminalize actions on the basis that they aren't optimal.

Then take it to the damn NY TIMES! Or the Washington Post or Fox News or Breitbart or Alex Jones! For crying out loud, your argument is apologetic absurd nonsense.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Hold on.

If the crime was listening to a proposal and walking away without making a deal, doesn't that mean that no collusion actually happened?

Pretty sure this meeting isn't the only thing the accusation of conspiracy hinges on.

 

[Ziggurat]

The nature of the speech can very much make it non-protected speech.

Sure. But speech about political matters is generally the most protected speech. Do you understand why?

"Selective disclosure" "speech" is an example. https://www.sec.gov/news/extra/sdiscfaq.htm

Sure. Those people have specific fiduciary duties, and those specific fiduciary duties can be violated by speech.

But no such duties attend to foreigners just for being foreigners.

 

[Ziggurat]

Pretty sure this meeting isn't the only thing the accusation of conspiracy hinges on.

This particular discussion is specifically about the meeting, and yes, multiple posters are claiming that this meeting (plus its arrangement) constitute a conspiracy.

We aren't discussing other allegations about the Trump campaign at the moment.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

As I said, defense by Dunning-Kruger.

It's not even Dunning-Kruger; it's a simple appeal to ignorance.

 

[LSSBB]

Are you under the impression that speech isn't information? And the motives of speech don't make it not speech.

How can they prosecute for conspiring to obtain and disseminate nuclear secrets? It's free speech, isn't it?

How can they prosecute for libel? It's free speech, isn't it?

Information has value. Ask Wikipedia, when they do another donation drive. Conspiring to get information of significant value is seeking to obtain a benefit.

In the matter at hand, it is the possibility of seeking something of value from a foreign government to benefit a political campaign. To deny information has value, or to assert that all information is protected free speech, is what you and others appear to be claiming.

Without any citations, research or case law to back your assertion, that I have seen

 

[acbytesla]

It's not even Dunning-Kruger; it's a simple appeal to ignorance.

There should be a term or a word to describe this desperate incredibly obtuse behavior, but I can't think of it. Maybe appeal to ignorance would be correct. But it seems more like an appeal for stupidity.

I know I am supposed to understand biology and evolution, but learning the science seems hard. So instead of learning all that, I'm going with this old book since it explains it all in a single paragraph.

 

[Fudbucker]

Sure. But speech about political matters is generally the most protected speech. Do you understand why?



Sure. Those people have specific fiduciary duties, and those specific fiduciary duties can be violated by speech.

But no such duties attend to foreigners just for being foreigners.

We already have the crime: the hacking of the DNC and some state election boards and stealing info on some half million Americans. The question is who, if anyone, in the Trump campaign knew about it and/or tried to profit from it? There have been too many lies and coincidences for it to be plausible that everyone in the Trump campaign was oblivious to the hacking and distribution of emails of their opponent's political party.

We already know from the indictments that a congressional candidate asked Guccifer specifically for the emails (and received them!). Are we supposed to pretend that this mysterious person knew there were stolen emails floating around and who to go to to get them, but the person running for President and all his underlings had no idea? I don't buy it. If all this was reversed and Clinton got in with Russian help, and fired the FBI director over "the Russia thing" and Chelsea was meeting with the Russians to get "dirt on Trump", and Hillary was constantly badmouthing her own FBI and DOJ, and doing it standing next to Putin...

It never would have even gotten to the firing Comey episode. You would have been calling for impeachment before she was even sworn in.

 

[acbytesla]

How can they prosecute for conspiring to obtain and disseminate nuclear secrets? It's free speech, isn't it?

How can they prosecute for libel? It's free speech, isn't it?

Information has value. Ask Wikipedia, when they do another donation drive. Conspiring to get information of significant value is seeking to obtain a benefit.

In the matter at hand, it is the possibility of seeking something of value from a foreign government to benefit a political campaign. To deny information has value, or to assert that all information is protected free speech, is what you and others appear to be claiming.

Without any citations, research or case law to back your assertion, that I have seen

Since Zig, is expanding free speech to information he could also include computer code.

 

[pgwenthold]

Not first amendment rights to participate in a crime. If "the dirt" is information that qualifies as "a thing of value", it was criminal to even offer it.

And if it doesn't have value, why are they arranging a meeting to provide it? Why can't they just release it in their own?

Because the real question is, what is it worth to you?