IG Horowitz report thread.

[ChristianProgressive]

Papadopoulos's contacts were not illegal. He got in trouble for lying about the contacts to the FBI, but the contacts themselves were not illegal, and not what he was charged with.

Papadopolous was engaged in trying to get dirt from Russia about Clinton. That is illegal under 52USC30121, among other laws.

The campaign knew what he was doing, and encouraged it so they would not have to "send a signal" by openly conspiring with the Russians. Which is a further crime.

 

[Ziggurat]

Papadopolous was engaged in trying to get dirt from Russia about Clinton. That is illegal under 52USC30121, among other laws.

The campaign knew what he was doing, and encouraged it so they would not have to "send a signal" by openly conspiring with the Russians. Which is a further crime.

You’re making stuff up. If that had been a crime, he would have been charged with it. He wasn’t.

 

[Brainster]

Brainster.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12925783#post12925783

I later corrected myself to say that it was a concoction comprised of information that was already in the public domain and a bunch of horse manure. Feel free to point me to something that Steele got right that was not already in the news.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

You’re making stuff up. If that had been a crime, he would have been charged with it. He wasn’t.

Look up 52USC30121 for yourself.

Not being charged doesn't mean no crime has been committed. Look at all of the obstruction of justice that is going uncharged right now.

 

[Ziggurat]

Look up 52USC30121 for yourself.

I have. And your interpretation of it is ridiculous.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

I have. And your interpretation of it is ridiculous.

THe plain text of the law is clear: no foreign person may donate anything of value to an American political campaign. Nor may any US politician solicit such a contribution.

Period. Full stop.

 

[Ziggurat]

THe plain text of the law is clear: no foreign person may donate anything of value to an American political campaign. Nor may any US politician solicit such a contribution.

Period. Full stop.

Speech isn't a thing in this context. It cannot be, or the law would be clearly unconstitutional as a violation of the 1st amendment.

Period. Full stop.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Speech isn't a thing in this context. It cannot be, or the law would be clearly unconstitutional as a violation of the 1st amendment.

Period. Full stop.

There is no "right" to solicit foreign interferance in our elections. Period. Full Stop.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is no "right" to solicit foreign interferance in our elections. Period. Full Stop.

There is a right to speech. You can talk to people. And that's all Papadopolous did. Beyond that, you're just making **** up.

 

[Brainster]

THe plain text of the law is clear: no foreign person may donate anything of value to an American political campaign. Nor may any US politician solicit such a contribution.

Period. Full stop.

The law is talking about things of monetary value. Otherwise foreign nationals could donate (say) jewelry or bonds that could easily be turned into money by the politician. By your reading, Joe Biden and Neil Kinnock should be on trial because Biden lifted a few lines from a Kinnock speech.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The law is talking about things of monetary value. Otherwise foreign nationals could donate (say) jewelry or bonds that could easily be turned into money by the politician. By your reading, Joe Biden and Neil Kinnock should be on trial because Biden lifted a few lines from a Kinnock speech.

Where does it mention monetary value in the law?

 

[Ziggurat]

Where does it mention monetary value in the law?

Where does it mention merely talking to people in the law?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Getting the leader of another country to do you a personal favor is not something of monetary value?
If that is the case, can I get some?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Getting the leader of another country to do you a personal favor is not something of monetary value?
If that is the case, can I get some?

Oh, they know it is. They are just pretending otherwise because they have to defend their "chosen one." If it were a Democratic President doing this, they would be all aboard the impeachment train. What they don't understand, though, is that Democrats would be in favor of impeachment as well.

That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

 

[Ziggurat]

Getting the leader of another country to do you a personal favor is not something of monetary value?

What leader did what favor for George Papadopolous? Because in case you've forgotten, that's who we're talking about, not Trump.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

What leader did what favor for George Papadopolous? Because in case you've forgotten, that's who we're talking about, not Trump.

please elaborate if you want me to comment.

 

[Ziggurat]

please elaborate if you want me to comment.

If you follow the thread back, you will find that the current sub-discussion started here:

Then why did Papadopolous engage in illegal back channel contacts with Russia on behalf of Trump?

ChristianProgressive is alleging that Papadopolous's contacts with Russians were illegal. I'm saying they were not illegal, that he only got in trouble for lying to the FBI about them, not the contacts themselves. The whole "thing of value" debate is about Papadopolous's contacts. I assume that you were referring to Trump's recent contacts with Ukraine, but that's off topic in this thread.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You are confusing a criminal investigation with a counter-intelligence one.

 

[Ziggurat]

You are confusing a criminal investigation with a counter-intelligence one.

No, TGZ, I'm not.

Now, do you think Papadopolous's contacts were illegal in and of themselves? If so, why?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I find it fascinating that Trumpanzees think that the Horowitz report shows some kind of deep state conspiracy when it does not at all. They dismiss all evidence that doesn't support their conspiracy theories.