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

[PhantomWolf]

Which goes back to the conversation with Kellyb. Is there any speech activity a foreign national can engage in? If it is personal experience with the subject, can they not share it?

I'd suggest that instead of asking here, you go and look it up for yourself, but if you really can't.....

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates...-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/

Foreign nationals

Campaigns may not solicit¹ or accept contributions² from foreign nationals³. Federal law prohibits contributions, donations⁴, expenditures⁵ and disbursements⁶ solicited, directed⁷, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local. This prohibition includes contributions or donations made to political committees⁸ and building funds and to make electioneering communications⁹. Furthermore, it is a violation of federal law to knowingly provide substantial assistance in the making, acceptance or receipt of contributions or donations in connection with federal and nonfederal elections to a political committee, or for the purchase or construction of an office building. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, acting as a conduit or intermediary¹⁰ for foreign national contributions and donations.

A person acts knowingly for the purposes of this section when he or she has:

• Actual knowledge that the funds have come from a foreign national;
• Awareness of certain facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that there is a substantial probability that the money is from a foreign national; or
• Awareness of facts that should have prompted a reasonable inquiry into whether the source of funds is a foreign national.

Pertinent facts that satisfy the “knowing” requirement include knowledge of:

• Use of a foreign passport or passport number;
• Use of a foreign address;
• A check or other written instrument drawn on an account or wire transfer from a foreign bank; or
• Contributor or donor living abroad.

Definition of foreign national

A foreign national is:

• An individual who is not a citizen of the United States, and not lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20)); or
• A foreign principal, as defined in 22 U.S.C. § 611(b). Section 611 defines a foreign principal as a group organized under the laws of a foreign country or having its principal place of business in a foreign country. The statute specifically mentions foreign governments, political parties, partnerships, associations and corporations.

“Green card” exception

An individual who is not a citizen of the United States is eligible to make a contribution if he or she has a “green card” indicating that he or she is lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States.

Notes:

1. Solicit: For the purposes of 11 CFR Part 300, to solicit means to ask, request or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting or recommending that a person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation may be made directly or indirectly. The context includes the conduct of persons involved in the communication. A solicitation does not include mere statements of political support or mere guidance as to the applicability of a particular law or regulation. 11 CFR 300.2(m).
2. Contribution: A gift, subscription, loan, advance or deposit of money or anything of value given to influence a federal election; or the payment by any person of compensation for the personal services of another person if those services are rendered without charge to a political committee for any purpose. 11 CFR 100.52(a) and 100.54.
3. Foreign National:
   1. An individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States and has not been lawfully admitted to the U.S. for permanent residence, as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20); or
   2. A foreign principal, as defined in 22 U.S.C. § 611(b).
4. Donation: A payment, gift, subscription, loan, advance, deposit or anything of value given to a person but does not include contributions.11 CFR 300.2(e).
5. Expenditure: A purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit or gift of money or anything of value made for the purpose of influencing a federal election. A written agreement to make an expenditure is also considered an expenditure. 11 CFR 100.111 and 100.112.
6. Disbursement: Any purchase or payment made by a political committee or any other person that is subject to the Federal Election Campaign Act. 11 CFR 300.2(d).
7. Directed: For purposes of 11 CFR Part 300, to direct means to guide, directly or indirectly, a person who has expressed an intent to make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds or otherwise provide anything of value, by identifying a candidate, political committee or organization for the receipt of such funds or things of value. The contribution, donation, transfer or thing of value may be provided directly or through an intermediary. Direction does not include merely providing information or guidance as to the applicability of a particular law or regulation. 11 CFR 300.2.
8. Political Committee:
   • An entity that meets one of the following conditions:
   • An authorized committee of a candidate (see definition of candidate)
   • Any club, association or other group of persons that receives contributions or makes expenditures, either of which aggregate over $1,000 during a calendar year
   • A local unit of a political party (except a state party committee) that: (1) receives contributions aggregating over $5,000 during a calendar year; (2) makes contributions or expenditures either of which aggregate over $1,000 during a calendar year or (3) makes payments aggregating over $5,000 during a calendar year for certain activities that are exempt from the definitions of contribution and expenditure (11 CFR 100.80, 100.87 and 100.89; 11 CFR 100.140, 100.149).
   • Any separate segregated fund upon its establishment. 11 CFR 100.5.
9. Electioneering Communication: Any broadcast, cable or satellite communication that (1) refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office; (2) is publicly distributed within certain time periods before an election and (3) is targeted to the relevant electorate. 11 CFR 100.29.
10. Intermediary: Any person who receives and forwards an earmarked contribution to a candidate or a candidate’s authorized committee. 11 CFR 110.6(b)(2).

 

[smartcooky]

She isn't credible on the matter.

I disagree entirely.

1. She knew that Michel Flynn was under pressure from the Russians, In January 2017, she warned McGahn that Flynn apparently had misled the administration about his communications with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador. Flynn initially claimed that he did not discuss sanctions with Kislyak, a remark that turned out to be false. The Dolt then fired Flynn "because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI*." Turns out Yates was absolutely 100% correct about Flynn - that is called credible

2. She refused to defend Dolt's racist immigration order because she was “not convinced” it was lawful. Again, it turns out that she was right, and the executive order had to be redrafted to make it both legal and constitutional - this looks like credible to me

Any way you slice it, Sally Yates is far more credible than the moronic, lying, cheating criminal bully-boy currently occupying the Oval Office.

* Its worth noting that Dolt said Flynn "lied to the Vice President and the FBI". This is very interesting, because at the time he made that statement, he should not have known about Flynn's lies to the FBI.

 

[acbytesla]

As a juror, I wouldn't ask myself. I would have to rely on the information presented by the prosecutor. So, the prosecutor would have to make the argument that the person isn't capable of embarrassment.

That's granted but you would also be able to rely on all the information available to you.

I can see Trump being embarrassed about the golden shower incident, but not what is under discussion. Trump has openly slept around on all of his wives. He has bragged about the women he slept with to countless people including on Howard Stern's national radio show.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Why wouldn't "we were embarrassed by it but not covering up a crime" be a sufficient excuse?

Well besides the cover-up involving criminal actions such as lying to the FEC and Congress?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well besides the cover-up involving criminal actions such as lying to the FEC and Congress?

Part of the argument would that it wasn't a violation of the law and their behavior was not suggestive that they thought it was

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'd suggest that instead of asking here, you go and look it up for yourself, but if you really can't.....

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates...-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/





Notes:

1. Solicit: For the purposes of 11 CFR Part 300, to solicit means to ask, request or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting or recommending that a person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation may be made directly or indirectly. The context includes the conduct of persons involved in the communication. A solicitation does not include mere statements of political support or mere guidance as to the applicability of a particular law or regulation. 11 CFR 300.2(m).
2. Contribution: A gift, subscription, loan, advance or deposit of money or anything of value given to influence a federal election; or the payment by any person of compensation for the personal services of another person if those services are rendered without charge to a political committee for any purpose. 11 CFR 100.52(a) and 100.54.
3. Foreign National:
   1. An individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States and has not been lawfully admitted to the U.S. for permanent residence, as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20); or
   2. A foreign principal, as defined in 22 U.S.C. § 611(b).
4. Donation: A payment, gift, subscription, loan, advance, deposit or anything of value given to a person but does not include contributions.11 CFR 300.2(e).
5. Expenditure: A purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit or gift of money or anything of value made for the purpose of influencing a federal election. A written agreement to make an expenditure is also considered an expenditure. 11 CFR 100.111 and 100.112.
6. Disbursement: Any purchase or payment made by a political committee or any other person that is subject to the Federal Election Campaign Act. 11 CFR 300.2(d).
7. Directed: For purposes of 11 CFR Part 300, to direct means to guide, directly or indirectly, a person who has expressed an intent to make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds or otherwise provide anything of value, by identifying a candidate, political committee or organization for the receipt of such funds or things of value. The contribution, donation, transfer or thing of value may be provided directly or through an intermediary. Direction does not include merely providing information or guidance as to the applicability of a particular law or regulation. 11 CFR 300.2.
8. Political Committee:
   • An entity that meets one of the following conditions:
   • An authorized committee of a candidate (see definition of candidate)
   • Any club, association or other group of persons that receives contributions or makes expenditures, either of which aggregate over $1,000 during a calendar year
   • A local unit of a political party (except a state party committee) that: (1) receives contributions aggregating over $5,000 during a calendar year; (2) makes contributions or expenditures either of which aggregate over $1,000 during a calendar year or (3) makes payments aggregating over $5,000 during a calendar year for certain activities that are exempt from the definitions of contribution and expenditure (11 CFR 100.80, 100.87 and 100.89; 11 CFR 100.140, 100.149).
   • Any separate segregated fund upon its establishment. 11 CFR 100.5.
9. Electioneering Communication: Any broadcast, cable or satellite communication that (1) refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office; (2) is publicly distributed within certain time periods before an election and (3) is targeted to the relevant electorate. 11 CFR 100.29.
10. Intermediary: Any person who receives and forwards an earmarked contribution to a candidate or a candidate’s authorized committee. 11 CFR 110.6(b)(2).

That still doesn't answer what is the extent of it.

Suppose a foreign national on an education visa had an affair with Clinton. She soured on it and decided to tell the Trump campaign. Is that a violation?

 

[acbytesla]

I'd suggest that instead of asking here, you go and look it up for yourself, but if you really can't.....

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates...-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/

Thanks for that edification Phantom.

 

[acbytesla]

That still doesn't answer what is the extent of it.

Suppose a foreign national on an education visa had an affair with Clinton. She soured on it and decided to tell the Trump campaign. Is that a violation?

Wow! Who says there isn't such a thing as a stupid question.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Wow! Who says there isn't such a thing as a stupid question.

Why is that a stupid question? I'm trying to figure out what is the bounds of a thing of value. Would you say even that would violate the law?

 

[smartcooky]

Wow! Who says there isn't such a thing as a stupid question.

Stupid questions and extreme outlier scenarios are the cornerstone of "bobbing". You should know that!

 

[LSSBB]

That still doesn't answer what is the extent of it.

Suppose a foreign national on an education visa had an affair with Clinton. She soured on it and decided to tell the Trump campaign. Is that a violation?

Your question is confusing. Is "she" referring to Clinton, or the foreign national? And are you asking if the foreign national violated the law, or the Trump campaign? And how did the Trump campaign react when informed, did they notify the election commission or cover up the encounter?

 

[Fudbucker]

"Trump slams Attorney General Jeff Sessions as 'scared stiff' and 'missing in action'"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...sessions-scared-stiff-russia-probe/967409002/

That is not suspicious at all, am I right? Trump bashing his own AG about the investigation of Trump's possible Russian collusion (Witch Hunt!!!) is totally normal and signifies nothing. There are no conclusions to be drawn about this behavior. It certainly isn't a sign that something nefarious is going on.
/Cain

Maybe I'm just a partisan, but this seems like obstruction of justice.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Your question is confusing. Is "she" referring to Clinton, or the foreign national? And are you asking if the foreign national violated the law, or the Trump campaign? And how did the Trump campaign react when informed, did they notify the election commission or cover up the encounter?

She is the foreign national. She told the campaign and they coordinated the release of the story. They held a press conference.

Did anyone break the law?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Stupid questions and extreme outlier scenarios are the cornerstone of "bobbing". You should know that!

I thought it was good practice to.try and start at the boundaries, work to the line, and then see where the actual situation falls, was a good strategy for learning.

 

[acbytesla]

Why is that a stupid question? I'm trying to figure out what is the bounds of a thing of value. Would you say even that would violate the law?

If you can't figure this all out on your own with all the information and patient and not so patient explanations, then I'm afraid you're incapable of understanding or more likely, that you have no actual interest in trying.

I said before I believe you are just engaged in chain yanking and sophistry. I know now ...and I probably knew then that I was right. This is sophistry piled on top of sophistry.

 

[acbytesla]

Stupid questions and extreme outlier scenarios are the cornerstone of "bobbing". You should know that!

I do. But I am a sucker....obviously.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If you can't figure this all out on your own with all the information and patient and not so patient explanations, then I'm afraid you're incapable of understanding or more likely, that you have no actual interest in trying.

I said before I believe you are just engaged in chain yanking and sophistry. I know now ...and I probably knew then that I was right. This is sophistry piled on top of sophistry.

I honestly cant figure out if the woman's story counts as a thing of value as defined by the law. If it is such an easy question, what is the answer?

 

[LSSBB]

She is the foreign national. She told the campaign and they coordinated the release of the story. They held a press conference.

Did anyone break the law?

Do you think the information she provided was of value to the Trump campaign? If the Trump campaign were to pay for the information, how much do you think they would pay? For comparison, how much would the National Enquirer pay for the story?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Do you think the information she provided was of value to the Trump campaign? If the Trump campaign were to pay for the information, how much do you think they would pay? For comparison, how much would the National Enquirer pay for the story?

Let's say the tabloids would pay a lot, but the times obviously wouldn't pay but would publish the story (she has the goods).

 

[acbytesla]

I honestly cant figure out if the woman's story counts as a thing of value as defined by the law. If it is such an easy question, what is the answer?

If I thought you were actually thinking about what was presented and how it fits this case, I would be happy to address your questions.

But you're just entertaining yourself to see how crazy a question you can ask. You don't really care about the answer, because as soon as someone answers that I am sure we can expect an even crazier followup. The next question will probably be something like if they weren't from Russia, but from the planet Zebulon would that still be illegal?