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

[BadBoy]

I thought of another exchange of a thing of value for something.

BBC gets a story on a scandal. They ask the campaign for a comment before publishing. They are giving the campaign something valuable, a headstart to prepare their messaging. They are receiving something of value, additional creditability that they chased the story appropriately.

Can the BBC do that?

Bonus, they are an extension of the government. So we have foreign nationals providing limited information to the campaign. Plus we took the side of their enemies 30 years ago.

Not really. It is neither state owned (it's the British Broadcasting Corporation you notice), nor state controlled, much to the annoyance of most, if not all, governments of the UK.

The BBC is subject to a Royal Charter which is the constitutional basis for the BBC. It sets out the public purposes of the BBC, guarantees its independence, and outlines the duties of the Trust and the Executive Board.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I apologize if this has already been covered, I admit I haven't read the whole thread, but do also consider the DNC and Clinton campaign guilty because of the Steele Dossier? The Steele Dossier fits your definition of "opposition research and a contribution from a foreign national and/or government" exactly.

No it doesn't and you might want to check sources other than Fox News et al for your facts.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Looking at the law, it seems you can absolutely buy things from foreigners as long as it is market price.

Could the Trump campaign have planned to purchase the material?

You mean the stolen material?

 

[Minoosh]

Looking at the law, it seems you can absolutely buy things from foreigners as long as it is market price.

Could the Trump campaign have planned to purchase the material?

Have you posted links to the legislation you are talking about? If not, could you?

 

[kellyb]

No it doesn't and you might want to check sources other than Fox News et al for your facts.

I had the same initial thought about the Steele dossier, and I don't ever read rightwing news or watch Fox, and I heard about the law in an anti-Trump facebook post about the CNN coverage.

 

[kellyb]

I apologize if this has already been covered, I admit I haven't read the whole thread, but do also consider the DNC and Clinton campaign guilty because of the Steele Dossier? The Steele Dossier fits your definition of "opposition research and a contribution from a foreign national and/or government" exactly.

Read a couple of pages starting at post 2165 here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=329970&page=55

1) the law only applies to "gift" type contributions and donations, and the Steele dossier was a paid product, more akin to buying hats and t shirts from China, which the Clinton campaign initiated the purchase of legally

2) there's a series of "walls" between the Clinton campaign and Steele. The campaign went to Fusion GPS, a US-based private company, and paid them to answer the question "Why did Mr. Trump repeatedly seek to do deals in a notoriously corrupt police state that most serious investors shun?" Fusion then went to Steele in the UK. The Clinton campaign (supposedly, at least, and there's no reason to disbelieve it) didn't even know how Fusion went about answering the question.

 

[kellyb]

You mean the stolen material?

Are you talking about this information/material?


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-email-text.html

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

 

[BobTheCoward]

You mean the stolen material?

We don't know what was discussed during the meeting, and none of the exchanges before said the word stolen.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I had the same initial thought about the Steele dossier, and I don't ever read rightwing news or watch Fox, and I heard about the law in an anti-Trump facebook post about the CNN coverage.

And did you then check other sources? Yes you did.

Hannity, Ingraham and Perro are all pushing the BS that Clinton should be arrested for hiring Steele. And then they go on with the ad nauseum assertions the Steele dossier and Crooked Democrats are all behind the Mueller investigation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We don't know what was discussed during the meeting, and none of the exchanges before said the word stolen.

Give it a rest, Bob. This has been discussed, there is other evidence you are ignoring.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you talking about this information/material?


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-email-text.html

Yes, that is some of it.

 

[kellyb]

Yes, that is some of it.

What's the rest?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Give it a rest, Bob. This has been discussed, there is other evidence you are ignoring.

I'm not ignoring it. I weigh it differently.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Have you posted links to the legislation you are talking about? If not, could you?

This is the law from page 68 that the conversation has focused on these last few pages.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12392127&postcount=2681

As an aside, this thread vacillates between being a thread about legal questions and general questions of what happened outside of trial standards of proof. It is interesting.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Help me understand.

"Trump conspired with the Russians to steal the election,"

Has been downgraded to...

"Trump accepted election influence as an illegal campaign contribution,"

Has been downgraded to...

"Trump considered an illegal campaign contribution but rejected the offer."

And that's the crime?

You're concentrating on a single event as if that was the entirety of the actions and issues that occurred. It's not.

One issue that could be extremely serious should we ever learn exactly what happened and why, was that just days after the Russian hackers broke into the DNC and stole the DNC analytics and playbook, the Trump campaign suddenly upended their own playbook, cancelling millions in advertising and meetings in the then current battle-ground states, and in an almost perfect counter to the DNC's playbook, moved those meetings and advertising to what had been seen as solid blue states just a month out from the Election. Many in Trump's team have conceded that it was this "genius move" that likely won them the election.

The question is, how coincidental is it that they apparently just lucked into what would seem to be a counter-intuitive, but perfect counter to the DNC playbook, just days after it had been compromised by the Russians?

It really boils down to a case of what did Trump know, and when did he know it, as far as the Russian activities were concerned. This is the same issue that was put before Nixon over Watergate, and it has a lot of parallels, with the only real differences being that instead of a physical intrusion by American burglars, it is a case of electronic intrusion by Russian Hackers.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This is the same issue that was put before Nixon over Watergate, and it has a lot of parallels, with the only real differences being that instead of a physical intrusion by American burglars, it is a case of electronic intrusion by Russian Hackers.

One of the reporters who broke Watergate said in an interview the other day that the biggest difference between the current situation and Watergate is that in Watergate the system worked and even Republicans held Nixon accountable, whereas with this the system is not working and Republicans are helping Trump.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not ignoring it. I weigh it differently.

So you weigh the whole exchange as meaningless except what you pick and choose?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What's the rest?

Oh my word, not you too.

Remember there is a bigger picture here. Trump's speeches, his tweets the email exchange, the denials and when exposed they concocted a new lie then when that was exposed they admitted that much and came up with a new version.

There's the whole Cambridge Analytica and how they used the stolen voter data bases to taylor their messages, Kushner was involved in that.

The list goes on. How many times do people need to re-write it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

One of the reporters who broke Watergate said in an interview the other day that the biggest difference between the current situation and Watergate is that in Watergate the system worked and even Republicans held Nixon accountable, whereas with this the system is not working and Republicans are helping Trump.

One of the regular MSNBC pundits is a Watergate prosecutor. She has a lot to say including the fact that they took the evidence/work home with them at night because they feared Nixon would have it seized.

I hope Mueller and his team are doing the same.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I'm not ignoring it. I weigh it differently.

Weasel words. There is no practical difference between ignoring something and giving it 'no' weight.