Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
I think regardless of its value, it still gets full first amendment protections. And the first amendment doesn't allow this sort of prohibition on speech.

I'm not convinced speech counts as a "thing" for the purposes of FEC regulation, but again, I don't care to argue that point because even if it is, the regulation then fails on constitutional grounds.
Click to expand...

Should the First Amendment have protected Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, do you think?
 
Cavemonster said:
Are laws involving intellectual property, defamation, and classified information violations of the first amendment as well?
Click to expand...

They can be (see, for example, attempts to prohibit fair use). Those that are not have to be narrowly constructed.

The interpretation of FEC regulations being put forth here is not.

Wouldn't the whole crime of conspiracy of any type go out the window? After all, talking to someone is speech.
Click to expand...

Nope. The crime of conspiracy has a requisite underlying crime, as well as criminal intent. That's what elevates it about only speech, just like violent threats aren't protected. No such requirements exist in the posited FEC restrictions. And additional narrowly constructed requirements must exist in order to prohibit speech, or else the first amendment is meaningless if you can construct arbitrary exceptions to it.

It's been pretty long settled that sharing information can constitute things other than expression and be regulated on those terms.
Click to expand...

But not in anywhere close to such a broad form.
 
Ziggurat said:
I think regardless of its value, it still gets full first amendment protections. And the first amendment doesn't allow this sort of prohibition on speech.

I'm not convinced speech counts as a "thing" for the purposes of FEC regulation, but again, I don't care to argue that point because even if it is, the regulation then fails on constitutional grounds.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can honestly claim that valuable information should be just called "speech" to shield it from the law.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's not my claim, so I don't know whether the details are tedious.

Evidence of anything criminal.
Click to expand...
So you're not really looking for evidence of the Trump camp conspiring with the Russians, you are only interested in Barr's summary. Got it.
 
theprestige said:
I haven't been keeping track of all the ins and outs of the investigation. Do you have a good source that lays out the facts of that meeting (dates, times, cites, etc.)?
Click to expand...

The NY Times has an interactive chart of Russian contacts by Trump associates. A still from that chart:

46168493715_0bb250514f_c.jpg


I’ll see if I can find a link to the interactive chart.

Here you go: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Should the First Amendment have protected Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, do you think?
Click to expand...

Case law on that point is well settled.

Now, why do you think my interpretation of the 1st amendment to this case is wrong? If your best argument is that the 1st amendment has exceptions, well, that doesn't suffice. Why is this a qualifying exception?

Because if you think you don't need to argue why any given restriction is a qualifying exception, then you're basically arguing that the first amendment is meaningless. And it's not.
 
Belz... said:
I don't think you can honestly claim that valuable information should be just called "speech" to shield it from the law.
Click to expand...

If it is speech, then why shouldn't it be protected by the first amendment?

Either you need to come up with a reason why it's not speech (good luck with that), or you need to make an argument for why it qualifies as an exception to the first amendment. There are some exceptions (such as violent threats), but they're narrowly constructed and limited in number. And so far, nobody seems interested in making the claim that this is one of those exceptions.
 
Upchurch said:
Whether you personally agree with the law or not, the FEC regulations are law and have the potential to be criminally prosecuted, as explained in the above link.
Click to expand...

The only theory of criminality advanced so far depends upon a reading of the FEC regulations that makes those regulations unconstitutional. An unconstitutional law which is still on the books may give prosecutors an excuse to prosecute someone, but they don't make that person guilty of a crime.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
The NY Times has an interactive chart of Russian contacts by Trump associates. A still from that chart:

[qimg]https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7886/46168493715_0bb250514f_c.jpg[/qimg]

I’ll see if I can find a link to the interactive chart.

Here you go: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html
Click to expand...

For anyone not wanting to open the link:

Red: had contact
Yellow: was told about contact (such as X told Trump about X or Y contact)
Blue: denied contact
Yellow line: charged by Mueller
 
Ziggurat said:
Case law on that point is well settled.
Click to expand...
Doesn't answer my question.

Ziggurat said:
Now, why do you think my interpretation of the 1st amendment to this case is wrong? If your best argument is that the 1st amendment has exceptions, well, that doesn't suffice. Why is this a qualifying exception?
Click to expand...

Well, largely, no one's speech was being prevented by the government, was it? What was being offered by the Russians was information of value that could help the Trump election campaign. Who was preventing the Russians from publishing that information? What government agency, exactly?
 
Ziggurat said:
If it is speech, then why shouldn't it be protected by the first amendment?
Click to expand...

I want to make it clear that you're now saying that everything that is said or expressed is protected regardless of what it is. If I tell you state secrets, it's speech that should be protected, right?
 
Ziggurat said:
Nope. The crime of conspiracy has a requisite underlying crime, as well as criminal intent.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. One can conspire to commit a crime and not go through with the underlying crime and it DOESN'T dismiss the fact that you committed conspiracy. Conspiracy holds up irrespective of the underlying crime.
 
Belz... said:
I don't think you can honestly claim that valuable information should be just called "speech" to shield it from the law.
Click to expand...

For me, it's the other way around. Instead of coming up with justifications for why this speech should be allowed, you should be coming up with justifications for why this speech should be prohibited.
 
Belz... said:
I want to make it clear that you're now saying that everything that is said or expressed is protected regardless of what it is. If I tell you state secrets, it's speech that should be protected, right?
Click to expand...

I explicitly said the reverse, in the very post you responded to:

Ziggurat said:
If it is speech, then why shouldn't it be protected by the first amendment?

Either you need to come up with a reason why it's not speech (good luck with that), or you need to make an argument for why it qualifies as an exception to the first amendment. There are some exceptions (such as violent threats), but they're narrowly constructed and limited in number. And so far, nobody seems interested in making the claim that this is one of those exceptions.
Click to expand...

This is really bad, Belz. We can't have a debate if this kind of misrepresentation continues. I'll give you another chance here, but I'm not interested in defending myself against straw men.
 
acbytesla said:
No it doesn't. One can conspire to commit a crime and not go through with the underlying crime and it DOESN'T dismiss the fact that you committed conspiracy. Conspiracy holds up irrespective of the underlying crime.
Click to expand...

You don't have to actually commit that crime, but the act being contemplated still has to BE a crime. If the contemplated or committed act isn't a crime, then there cannot be a criminal conspiracy. So no, conspiracy doesn't hold up irrespective of the criminality of the underlying act (contemplated or committed).
 
Ziggurat said:
You don't have to actually commit that crime, but the act being contemplated still has to BE a crime. If the contemplated or committed act isn't a crime, then there cannot be a criminal conspiracy. So no, conspiracy doesn't hold up irrespective of the criminality of the underlying act (contemplated or committed).
Click to expand...

Fortunately, there does appear to be applicable criminal law (whether or not you agree with it) that the Trump campaign was attempting to break in this case, so that point is moot.
 
Ziggurat said:
I explicitly said the reverse, in the very post you responded to:
Click to expand...

Oh, I know you theoretically admit that exceptions exist. It's just that when push comes to shove what is considered an exception seems to oddly vary with the party being examined.

The question is not one of free speech anyway, but whether Trump's associates sought help from a foreign power to influence the election.

theprestige said:
For me, it's the other way around. Instead of coming up with justifications for why this speech should be allowed, you should be coming up with justifications for why this speech should be prohibited.
Click to expand...

Except that no one here is suggesting that we limit free speech. The question of free speech is just another, fresh new excuse that Zig brought up to avoid admitting that someone on his side did something wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom