pErvinalia wrote:Forty Two wrote:Yes, I understand that. However, my point was that if you make a deal to pay for information, there necessarily entails a "promise" and a "solicitation" for the information. So that same analysis would, in fact, render a pay-for-dirt-from-foreign-person transaction a promise and a solicitation, which goes on to become a deal wherein money is exchanged for the dirt.
No, it's solicitation and/or promise in the context of DONATIONS.
Nobody is using the word donations, not in the case of Trump Jr. and not in the case of Clinton. If the solicitation is for information, not a donation. And, the law doesn't just concern "donations" - it's "contributions OR donations of money or other thing of value..." or an express or implied promise or solicitation for any such contribution OR donation.
Certainly, an "other thing of value" that is paid for can still be considered a "contribution" to the campaign.
But, of course, the law has only ever been applied to money anyway, or some concrete thing of value "in kind." It's never been suggested that if a foreign person tells you something dirty they know about a candidate that that constitutes a campaign finance violation.
pErvinalia wrote:
In addition, it makes very little sense for Trump Jr to have had a defense available to him - all he had to do was enter into a deal to pay for the dirt from the Russian lawyer, rather than just get it for free.
That seems to be a reasonable point, and I don't know what the answer to that is.
The answer is that it's not a violation of the applicable campaign finance statute to receive information about an opponent, whether or not it's a foreign person telling you the information. The idea that it would be is absurd. Of course it's not illegal for Clinton to buy information from Fusion GPS and use it against Trump, and of course it's not illegal for some chick from Russia to give Don Trump Jr a juicy tidbit about Hillary. Those are not what is meant by "thing of value" in the statute, and no law enforcement or campaign finance official has ever suggested that it would be a violation. You only see it in mouthed by pundits and politically motivated persons.
pErvinalia wrote:
It would be a strange law that says British dirt-collectors don't have to play by the same rules as Russian dirt-collectors.
L'Emmy already explained this to you. The dems didn't pay a British dirt collector. They paid an American company.
Steele was a British dirt collector. If they paid an American company, but got the info from a foreign person, then it's a conspiracy to obtain the dirt.
pErvinalia wrote:
I've got no doubt that the lines can be blurred in these cases and that there's going to be potentially different interpretations depending on the other nation involved. But take a step back and have a look at what you are defending. You are defending the possibility that a hostile fascist regime (don't be fucking talking about what Obama said here, I don't give a fuck what Obama said) has tried to sway your "democratic" elections. And in your attempts to equivocate you are using the case of the UK, your closest ally in the world and an open liberal democracy, to compare to Russia. Even you should be able to see how fucking ridiculous that is.
The UK is our ally, but Steele is not our ally. He's some guy.
And, I don't equivocate on this issue. I'll be concerned and outraged by a hostile fascist regime trying to "sway" our democratic election when I see an allegation that makes sense that is actually illegal. I don't give a flying fuck if Natasha and Boris Badanov go meet with people in the US to chat about the dirt they have on one or more of our politicians. They might be performing a public service if the dirt they have is ACCURATE. I mean, what if Boris Badanov comes to meet Hillary Clinton in October, 2016, and he says, "hey, Hillary baby, I will have you know, I have the video of pee-pee night. I have here, in my hot little hands, a certified, true, and accurate copy, which we can prove is accurate and true, of Donald J. Trump naked and fat, cavorting with Russian hookers and both watching and engaging in water sports. We also have him kicking puppies, taking lollipops from babies, and stealing dollar bills from strippers and homeless people." Let's assume all of that is really true, and the proof is there. All Hillary has to do is reach out and take it.
Or, let's add another example - HIllary had contacts with Boris when she was Secretary of State. During her time there, at a State function, there were Russian officials involved. Boris comes up to her and jokes that he has some interesting info on a real estate mogul that attended Chelsea Clinton's wedding. This is long before Trump runs for Prez, but it sticks in the back of her mind. Fast forward to 2016, and Hillary remembers talking to Boris. She picks up the phone and solicits the information from him. "Hey, Boris baby, remember way back when at Chelsea's wedding you said you had dirt on a real estate mogul?" Boris replies "yes, Hillary my love." And, Hillary says "is that Donald Trump?" Boris says, "I was waiting for your call. Yes, indeed." Hillary says, "O.k., what do you want for the information?" And, Boris says "I can give it to you gratis, for free. I would like to influence the election in your favor, so I want you to have it. My courier will meet you at an appointed time to give you the package. It will have everything needed for the FBI and other folks to verify and substantiate it. The guy is toast."
Then right before the election, Hillary releases the foreign person provided information, and it tips the election in her favor. She wins by a landslide, and Trump is embarrassed and humiliated for life.
Let's not get into this "whattabout Hillary" discussion. I did not use the example in the way I did to say "whattabout hillary" or to show anything about Trump is fine because Hillary did it too. This is a hypothetical to make a point about foreign influence.
To me, Hillary has not, in that example, done anything wrong. And, Boris Badanov, while he absolutely decided the election for us -- he did so PROPERLY. The info was true.
Russians wanting Hillary to win, or Trump to win, and Russians posting facebook ads, and giving out information, and engaging in propaganda, and that sort of thing. That's stuff that, in my view, cannot be prohibited. There's nothing we can do about it. We can stop campaign donations of money, and that sort ofthing. But you can't stop people from talking to each other and posting lawful advertisements and expressing their opinion, regardless of what country they're from.
Now, IF there is an allegation that Trump was involved in illegal hacking, for example, then that would be something of major concern. But, the reality is that when drill down this matter to its specifics. Nobody is alleging that Trump did one thing that, if true, is actually illegal. All they're getting is stuff like Manafort (financial crimes in 2014) and the odd person like Flynn or Papadapoulos who made misstatements tothe FBI about relatively inconsequential stuff, but the lie - regardless of what it is about - is the crime. They then armtwist a plea deal, by saying how easy it is to prove, and say that they'll be lenient if you plead guilty, but if you make us go to trial you'll do time in federal prison.
That's all they have, as far as what we've been told. When we're told something else, I'll be open to changing my mind. Until then, I'll not get outraged over generalizations sold in the press by anonymous sources claiming to know things they likely can't know, and based on supposed intelligence we can't see.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
It clearly addresses this. It covers both "promises" to give information and "solicitation" for such information.
