Mueller Investigation pt5

[Ziggurat]

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?

That's not the way first amendment protections work. A restriction on the venue of speech is still a restriction on speech. There are some such restrictions, but they have to be narrowly constructed, and this isn't. Claiming that other venues are available doesn't suffice to justify such a restriction.

 

[Cavemonster]

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.

In this case, the speech is clearly information of value. We've determined and articulated through our FEC regulations that we don't want foreign nationals, much less foreign governments contributing to campaigns for a whole slew of reasons that I hope we don't need to get into. Otherwise it will start to feel like a whole chain of "why" that lands us back at solipsism.

 

[Upchurch]

That's not the way first amendment protections work. A restriction on the venue of speech is still a restriction on speech. There are some such restrictions, but they have to be narrowly constructed, and this isn't. Claiming that other venues are available doesn't suffice to justify such a restriction.

What venue did which government agency restrict the Russians?

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh, I know you theoretically admit that exceptions exist.

I explicitly stated multiple times that threats of violence are exceptions. That isn't theoretical.

It's just that when push comes to shove what is considered an exception seems to oddly vary with the party being examined.

But that's not what you just claimed. You didn't claim I was wrong or inconsistent about what exceptions I accepted, you claimed that I didn't accept ANY exceptions. And that's simply not true.

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

It's very much a question of free speech, because people are asserting that a specific act was criminal, and I'm saying it's not because it's protected speech.

Except that no one here is suggesting that we limit free speech.

But they are. Everyone who claims that the FEC regulations prohibited the Trump Tower meeting is saying that the FEC regulations restrict 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.

"Wrong" and "illegal" are not the same thing. I'm not very interested in what you consider "wrong" because that's subjective, there's too much disagreement over it, and the proper remedy for "wrong" is the ballot box, which is going to be put to the test regardless. I'm interested in "illegal" because that's what deserves a non-electoral remedy.

But more importantly, I will note that you're now personalizing this. I'm about to bail on this exchange, because I'm not interested in getting in another personalized argument. Last chance to handle things differently.

 

[Ziggurat]

What venue did which government agency restrict the Russians?

According to you, the FEC restricts the Russians from speech in private to the Trump campaign.

 

[Upchurch]

But they are. Everyone who claims that the FEC regulations prohibited the Trump Tower meeting is saying that the FEC regulations restrict speech.

Well, that might be a question for the courts, but I'm pretty sure you don't possess the authority to make that decision for them. Until such time as they take up the question, it remains the law and can be criminally prosecuted.

Arguing otherwise is just silly.

 

[Belz...]

I explicitly stated multiple times that threats of violence are exceptions. That isn't theoretical.

Don't play with me. Obviously you'll admit that exceptions exist so long as they don't pertain to the current discussion, whatever that discussion is.

But that's not what you just claimed. You didn't claim I was wrong or inconsistent about what exceptions I accepted, you claimed that I didn't accept ANY exceptions.

I'm not going to waste time explaining figures of speech to you.

It's very much a question of free speech, because people are asserting that a specific act was criminal, and I'm saying it's not because it's protected speech.

And that's the beauty of it. Anything can be described as speech if you try hard enough.

"Wrong" and "illegal" are not the same thing.

Granted, but irrelevant to my point.

But more importantly, I will note that you're now personalizing this.

Did you or did you not bring up the issue of free speech? Am I allowed to use your username or the pronoun "you"? Are you just now made aware of the perception that you consistently get into logical gymnastics to defend conservatives? None of this goes beyond the pale or what's considered civil.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, that might be a question for the courts, but I'm pretty sure you don't possess the authority to make that decision for them. Until such time as they take up the question, it remains the law and can be criminally prosecuted.

Arguing otherwise is just silly.

Your double standards are amusing. I can't make decisions for the court, but you can make decisions for the prosecutors.

That's not how any of this works. I'm not making decisions FOR the court, I'm describing how I think the courts will act. I'm allowed to do that. Just as you're allowed to describe how you think prosecutors will act. But note that while it remains untested whether courts would act the way I predict, prosecutors have NOT acted in accordance with your interpretation of the statutes and regulations.

 

[Cavemonster]

It seems to me that if it is unconstitutional to have any law that limits what information of value foreign governments can give to a political campaign, then campaigns could legally outsource any services which result in information or speech to a foreign government.

China could do all of the poling, opposition research, canvassing for a campaign, and nothing would be wrong. Any media companies owned by the Chinese could provide free political ads 24/7, billboards on any Chinese owned buildings (and there are a lot of them all over the US) None of that could possibly be regulated in any way.

Now, I typed quickly and I'm not a legal expert, so I won't stand behind the specifics on that list, but the general trend should hold.

 

[Upchurch]

Your double standards are amusing. I can't make decisions for the court, but you can make decisions for the prosecutors.

Oh, no. Not at all. I'm not saying that they have to prosecute, I'm saying that there is a possibility prosecution because there is an applicable law.

I'm not making decisions FOR the court, I'm describing how I think the courts will act.

That's lovely. As it currently stands, however, the law has not been overturned, has it? Therefore, there is still an applicable law, is there not? Until the law is overturned, you can't really say it does not exist.

 

[Ziggurat]

Don't play with me. Obviously you'll admit that exceptions exist so long as they don't pertain to the current discussion, whatever that discussion is.

You made a claim about me that's obviously wrong, and I'm playing with you?

I'm not going to waste time explaining figures of speech to you.

You don't get to hide lies behind "figures of speech".

And that's the beauty of it. Anything can be described as speech if you try hard enough.

Is this factually wrong statement your actual opinion? Or should I interpret this as just a "figure of speech"?

Granted, but irrelevant to my point.

But not to mine.

Did you or did you not bring up the issue of free speech? Am I allowed to use your username or the pronoun "you"?

That's not the problem, Belz. You claimed I'm making excuses. That's an assertion of bad motives, not a disagreement about the substance of the argument. And that's the personalization I object to.

Are you just now made aware of the perception that you consistently get into logical gymnastics to defend conservatives?

... he said, after defending a lie as a "figure of speech". And again, this isn't about the subject of the thread, this is a personal attack against me.

None of this goes beyond the pale or what's considered civil.

I'm not claiming it rises to the level of a forum rules violation. I would report it if I thought it did, and I didn't. But it creates personal hostility between us, and it isn't actually relevant to the subject at hand.

Yet you can't avoid it. You complain when I express personal hostility towards you, but you can't help but create that hostility yourself.

And I'm not going to do it. I'm done with you in this thread. If you wanted that result, congratulations, you won. If you didn't, consider a change in tactics next time.

 

[Belz...]

You don't get to hide lies behind "figures of speech".

Is hyperbole a lie? Is an allegory a lie? Stop saying nonsense.

Is this factually wrong statement your actual opinion? Or should I interpret this as just a "figure of speech"?

No, one can actually call everything speech if they try hard enough. You don't think so? Money is speech, now, for instance. Hell, any work of art is speech. I'm sure work is speech if one makes the right argument for it. Mountains are nature-speech, if I want to take it to extremes.

That's not the problem, Belz. You claimed I'm making excuses. That's an assertion of bad motives, not a disagreement about the substance of the argument. And that's the personalization I object to.

Well, that's too bad, because from my perspective that's exactly what it looks like. See below.

I'm not claiming it rises to the level of a forum rules violation. I would report it if I thought it did, and I didn't. But it creates personal hostility between us, and it isn't actually relevant to the subject at hand.

If you want to avoid hostility, my I suggest being more critical of _some_ conservatives, _once_ in a while?

 

[applecorped]

 

[varwoche]

When the "free speech" concerns information that was obtained illegally, is it still just "free speech"?

 

[Ziggurat]

When the "free speech" concerns information that was obtained illegally, is it still just "free speech"?

Possibly not, but what information was obtained illegally?

I've seen multiple people claim that the Russians were offering hacked emails. But there's no evidence of that, and it doesn't match publicly available information.

From what we know about what was offered, the information that was offered (but never actually supplied) was about shading dealings Hillary allegedly had with Russians. The easiest and most obvious way for Russian agents to have obtained such information (if it existed) would have been from the Russians who dealt with Hillary, and they could have obtained that legally in Russia. It's conceivable such information (if it existed) could have been obtained from hacking Hillary's State Dept. emails, but we don't know that they were ever hacked.

What's really not plausible is that information about Hillary's dirty dealings with Russians (if it existed) would have been on the DNC email servers which got hacked, AND that the Trump campaign would expect such information to have turned up from the DNC hack.

So given what we know, what's the scenario under which the information offered for the Trump Tower meeting was illegally obtained? Or are you suggesting a speculative theory on what could have happened but for which there isn't any real evidence?

 

[theprestige]

When the "free speech" concerns information that was obtained illegally, is it still just "free speech"?

It depends.

For example: In the US, as a general rule, leaking classified information is a crime, committed by the leaker. However, publishing information that was leaked is free speech. That's why Bradley Manning is on the wrong side of the law, but the people that published his leaked material are not.

But what information are we even talking about? This is why I was asking if someone could cite some details about the facts of the meeting in question. Everyone else seems to already know what they're talking about, and to assume everybody they're talking to also already knows.

I might have something to contribute, or at least be able to reach a better-informed conclusion of my own, if I knew which Russian contact we're discussing.

 

[Upchurch]

Possibly not, but what information was obtained illegally?

I've seen multiple people claim that the Russians were offering hacked emails. But there's no evidence of that, and it doesn't match publicly available information.

"Dirt". The Russians were offering "dirt" on Clinton, to which Trump Jr. declared "I love it". Because, you know, the "dirt" being offered by the foreign government was of value to the Trump campaign.

source

From what we know about what was offered, the information that was offered (but never actually supplied)

See, the thing is, you don't really need to actually be able to follow through to conspire to commit a crime....

 

[Childlike Empress]

So given what we know, what's the scenario under which the information offered for the Trump Tower meeting was illegally obtained?

AFAIR there is no evidence that any information was offered at all. Don and Jared were promised that some would be offered, and the Russians were promised that they could make their case against the Magnitzky act. The person who arranged the meeting and seems to have fooled both sides was that strange music manager from the UK who looks like Fred Flintstone. His name escapes me at the moment. Hence the meeting was over shortly after it started.

 

[Upchurch]

AFAIR there is no evidence that any information was offered at all. Don and Jared were promised that some would be offered,

That is an offer.

 

[Ziggurat]

"Dirt". The Russians were offering "dirt" on Clinton, to which Trump Jr. declared "I love it". Because, you know, the "dirt" being offered by the foreign government was of value to the Trump campaign.

source

What part of your source indicates the information on offer was obtained illegally? Because I see nothing in there which indicates that.

See, the thing is, you don't really need to actually be able to follow through to conspire to commit a crime....

But the activity you're conspiring to do still has to BE a crime.

We've got allegations that the information Russia offered was obtained illegally, but no evidence to back that up. And we've got allegations that giving information to Trump would have been an illegal campaign finance violation, bases on a suspect reading of FEC regulations with serious first amendment problems, and which Mueller somehow didn't think was worth going after for reasons. But that's it so far. Not impressive.