The Infamous Russian Dossier

[Aglaopheme]

OFA had been around for years. It switched to OFAction from OFAmerica after the 2012 election. It most certainly doesn't violate any laws.

 

[Que]

OFA had been around for years. It switched to OFAction from OFAmerica after the 2012 election. It most certainly doesn't violate any laws.

I'm sure you are right. They, after all, have stellar legal representation.

What's the name of that lawyer representing them? Elias something?

 

[Aglaopheme]

I'm sure you are right. They, after all, have stellar legal representation.

What's the name of that lawyer representing them? Elias something?

You're letting your ignorance of campaign finance shine through again. I know I saw the article, but it was as equally bad as the one hypoxia said to take merely as entertainment.

 

[Que]

You're letting your ignorance of campaign finance shine through again. I know I saw the article, but it was as equally bad as the one hypoxia said to take merely as entertainment.

Probably true.

It's much easier to spot the obvious hype and distortions in an article that you don't agree with then in one that you generally do agree with.

I like to think that I use opinion writers merely as filters to see what they're reading and then click through to the original source material. Inevitably though, I'm sure quite a bit of the opinion of that writer sticks with me as I click through.

I'm finding it kind of annoying to be honest. You click here and there, trying to read something on a given subject and what you find are a lot of different writers just putting together two or three sentences about what some other writer means and then you click to that writer who's basically paraphrasing someone else and you click that person only to find that the original article really wasn't anything about what the first person was talking about.

as an aside I obviously pronounce writer as Rider because I had to go back and correct that all throughout my text. and why the hell does it keeps capitalizing Rider. Is that somebody prominent that I should know about?

 

[Aglaopheme]

Probably true.

It's much easier to spot the obvious hype and distortions in an article that you don't agree with then in one that you generally do agree with.

I like to think that I use opinion writers merely as filters to see what they're reading and then click through to the original source material. Inevitably though, I'm sure quite a bit of the opinion of that writer sticks with me as I click through.

I'm finding it kind of annoying to be honest. You click here and there, trying to read something on a given subject and what you find are a lot of different writers just putting together two or three sentences about what some other writer means and then you click to that writer who's basically paraphrasing someone else and you click that person only to find that the original article really wasn't anything about what the first person was talking about.

as an aside I obviously pronounce writer as Rider because I had to go back and correct that all throughout my text. and why the hell does it keeps capitalizing Rider. Is that somebody prominent that I should know about?

I tend to avoid opinion pieces whether I agree with them or not, because they are annoying as you said. I went down that rabbit hole reading something someone posted about HPV and the gay community that just reaffirmed my stance.

I'm starting my challenge at my midnight, so you have 50 minutes to take your best shot.

 

[Que]

I tend to avoid opinion pieces whether I agree with them or not, because they are annoying as you said. I went down that rabbit hole reading something someone posted about HPV and the gay community that just reaffirmed my stance.

I'm starting my challenge at my midnight, so you have 50 minutes to take your best shot.

Ive gotta start now because I am going to fuck up.

Most likely by injectung politics into a non-political thread.

I mean, for example let's say some economic indicators are out and interesting and are going to be impacted by potential tax reform changes if any are ever put through. How do you have that discussion without angling into the politics of whether or not you keep the mortgage tax deduction?

You take that away as well as the elephant in the room that I really should just simply let lie and I would basically just be a mute.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Ive gotta start now because I am going to fuck up.

Most likely by injectung politics into a non-political thread.

I mean, for example let's say some economic indicators are out and interesting and are going to be impacted by potential tax reform changes if any are ever put through. How do you have that discussion without angling into the politics of whether or not you keep the mortgage tax deduction?

You take that away as well as the elephant in the room that I really should just simply let lie and I would basically just be a mute.

Ha! Mute might be a good idea. Folks can't even keep politics out of people that adhere to a few rules.

 

[Que]

Ha! Mute might be a good idea. Folks can't even keep politics out of people that adhere to a few rules.

Yeah, I don't think I'd like the results if that were put to a vote.

 

[DrDelirium]

There's very little 'news' that is not heavily laced with opinion these days, and reporting is heavily biased simply by what is neglected. My morning feed has an article "What we know and don't know about Mueller's impending Indictment. It purports to be reportage, but it 'reports' entirely on speculation and innuendo. It's full of phrases like "It's highly possible," and "Mueller doesn't seem like the type of person." The article is actually pretty much fact free, and asks many contentious questions to which it presents answers that are entirely fact free.

The only thing I 'know' as a result of reading the article is the bias of the author.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pending-indictment/ar-AAuckBq?ocid=spartandhp

 

[DawnODay]

The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the United States. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:

Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;
Making any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district, or local political party (including donations to a party nonfederal account or office building account);
Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication;
Making any donation to a presidential inaugural committee.
Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to an FEC enforcement action, criminal prosecution, or both.

https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

It is my understanding, based on a report I heard on NPR Friday morning, that the information coming out late last week fully implicates the DNC, and probably the Clinton Campaign, in exactly this by paying for and employing the phony dossier.

That would be a misunderstanding.

Are you sure it's a misunderstanding?

I have heard it repeated several times from various sources on both sides of the political spectrum, most recently in context of the Donna Brazile article in POLITICO establishing that by that time Hillary had taken full control of the DNC and co-opted all its resources for just her campaign, that the DNC, and probably the Clinton Campaign, paid for and employed the phony dossier.

In light of that, how is it a "misunderstanding" that the Clinton campaign violated the federal law you cite by colluding with a foreign agent to create the phony dossier, and then disseminating it, "in connection with" the presidential election?

 

[dontbackdown]

Are you sure it's a misunderstanding?

I have heard it repeated several times from various sources on both sides of the political spectrum, most recently in context of the Donna Brazile article in POLITICO establishing that by that time Hillary had taken full control of the DNC and co-opted all its resources for just her campaign, that the DNC, and probably the Clinton Campaign, paid for and employed the phony dossier.

In light of that, how is it a "misunderstanding" that the Clinton campaign violated the federal law you cite by colluding with a foreign agent to create the phony dossier, and then disseminating it, "in connection with" the presidential election?

There is no misunderstanding, it's denial and deflection. And as more and more evidence is brought forth the denial and deflection is going to become downright bizarre. The limits of dysfunctional rationalization are going to be stretched to the limits.

 

[adrina]

There is no misunderstanding, it's denial and deflection. And as more and more evidence is brought forth the denial and deflection is going to become downright bizarre. The limits of dysfunctional rationalization are going to be stretched to the limits.

Indeed. With the way the RWCJ is acting, you'd think Clinton was president instead of Trump.

 

[jaF0]

Phony?

Haven't parts of it been independently confirmed?

 

[adrina]

Phony?

Haven't parts of it been independently confirmed?

Correct. The only thing that hasn't been is the Russian prostitutes peeing on the bed.

The dossier is factual.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

Correct. The only thing that hasn't been is the Russian prostitutes peeing on the bed.

The dossier is factual.

Okay. That is not what I have read or heard on the news, but I will admit I have not studied it that closely.

I tend to lean right on more issues these days, but am certainly not a fan of Trump. So far, however, all the complaints I have seen leveled against him seem either to end up being false, or very petty, and certainly never a basis for impeachment (no "high crimes [or] misdemeanors"). On the other hand, I think the country might be better off if Trump were forced from office.

So now you have me curious: What are the damaging facts in this dossier?

 

[dontbackdown]

Indeed. With the way the RWCJ is acting, you'd think Clinton was president instead of Trump.

THIS is my reply to you, or anyone else for that matter.

It has nothing to do with right or left. It has everything to do with influence peddling. I want to see the K street whores in prison and the elected officials, or high appointee's, guilty of such behavior under the prison and I don't care what their political affiliation happens to be.

You, and many other, hyper hormone driven partisans can only see Trump. If he's guilty, fine. But in your zeal you blind yourself to those on your side of the fence that are just as guilty if not more so.

 

[cowslinger64]

THIS is my reply to you, or anyone else for that matter.

It has nothing to do with right or left. It has everything to do with influence peddling. I want to see the K street whores in prison and the elected officials, or high appointee's, guilty of such behavior under the prison and I don't care what their political affiliation happens to be.

You, and many other, hyper hormone driven partisans can only see Trump. If he's guilty, fine. But in your zeal you blind yourself to those on your side of the fence that are just as guilty if not more so.

I'm all for anyone guilty to be tried and punished.. But how many times does Hilary have to be investigated? It's been a fuckin constant for many years and nothings come of it. How many Benghazi hearings? 7?

Instead of beating the Clinton dead horse, perhaps they should find another object of desire.. Start with Trump and work from there.

And as long as Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld remain free, you rwcjs are hypocritical talking about Obama, Hilary or anyone..

 

[about_average]

I wonder why Trump doesn't want Rubio investigated for his part in the dossier.

You cannot criminalize the administration for doing its due diligence especially since Trump insisted on surrounding himself with people who worked closely with the oligarchs of the Putin Mafia.

Stop it. There is no evidence of Trump collusion with Russians.

No wonder you're so ignorant about things.
You actually think spearechucker said Trump colluded.

 

[Hypoxia]

And as long as Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld remain free, you rwcjs are hypocritical talking about Obama, Hilary or anyone..

Tromp seems to have filled many Cabinet and staff positions with folks who worked as agents of foreign powers without registering as such. We have a word for a citizen who secretly works for a foreign state: spy. Tromp has surrounded himself with spies working for Turkey, Russia, Belarus, etc. How long will all these spies (and Tromp) remain free?

Back to Dubya's gang. Had Obama any vindictive instincts, all that crew (and financiers who engineered the crash) would have perp-walked in 2009.

I see a parallel. After Lee's surrender, Lincoln (and his traitorous VP successor) did not hang insurgent leaders, thinking the nation would heal better. Now the wretched spawn of those traitors are trying to tear the nation apart. Obama in office failed to charge Gup and Wall Street slime, likely on the notion that such trials would only be political flashpoints. Now those filthy slime have control of gov't and much of the economy. Obama was weak; we all suffer.

 

[dontbackdown]

Tromp seems to have filled many Cabinet and staff positions with folks who worked as agents of foreign powers without registering as such. We have a word for a citizen who secretly works for a foreign state: spy. Tromp has surrounded himself with spies working for Turkey, Russia, Belarus, etc. How long will all these spies (and Tromp) remain free?

Back to Dubya's gang. Had Obama any vindictive instincts, all that crew (and financiers who engineered the crash) would have perp-walked in 2009.

I see a parallel. After Lee's surrender, Lincoln (and his traitorous VP successor) did not hang insurgent leaders, thinking the nation would heal better. Now the wretched spawn of those traitors are trying to tear the nation apart. Obama in office failed to charge Gup and Wall Street slime, likely on the notion that such trials would only be political flashpoints. Now those filthy slime have control of gov't and much of the economy. Obama was weak; we all suffer.

Look, I understand where you're coming from and to an extent I agree but I think you're using far to broad a brush. If you are going to levy that charge against Trumps cabinet you have to levy the same charge against damn near every out of power (appointive or elective) democrat as well. Ever since WWII we are living in a ever more interconnected world, especially since the 1980's. It's virtually impossible to rise to a high level management position anywhere, with any entity, without being involved with foreign actors, be they business or government. And therein lies the problem. At what point is the line crossed from "doing business with" to "acting in the interests of?"

As an example, Google has highly censored it's product in nations such as China. They have done so at the demand of the Chinese government as a cost of doing business in China. So, is Google merely "doing business with", or "acting in the interests of" the Chinese government. I can argue a case for either side of that decision matrix. If I can convince a court that they are "acting in the interests of" China then virtually every senior executive at Google could be charged for not registering as a "foreign agent." Examples can be made of damn near every company that does business off-shore. Where and how you draw that line makes all the difference in the world and is one of the reasons that the charges against Manafort may be far weaker than they seem on the surface.

If you can levy that charge against Trump's cabinet then you can levy the same charge against almost every cabinet member, past or present, going all the way back to Truman.

Where I agree with you is that holding high government position while your party is in power has become a revolving door to big bucks in the private sector acting as 'agents' directly registered or casually associated with legal firms that are registered agents and or corporations engaged in international trade. How that problem is dealt with is a completely different, and far stickier, problem than it seems superficially.

 

[daimoniotica]

Many tech cos won't do biz in Communist China because they have to fully comply with draconian Communist Party of China dictates.

Every Apple fan girl and boy should be proud that Apple - in order to do biz in Communist China - abets the Communist Party in thier total digital oppression of the Chinese people, including providing the digital evidence to put them in prison simply for no greater crime than free speech.

Funny how so many socialists/progressives enthusiastically support Apple in doing so.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

as an aside I obviously pronounce writer as Rider because I had to go back and correct that all throughout my text. and why the hell does it keeps capitalizing Rider. Is that somebody prominent that I should know about?

Not too late to learn touch typing.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the United States. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:

Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;
Making any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district, or local political party (including donations to a party nonfederal account or office building account);
Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication;
Making any donation to a presidential inaugural committee.
Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to an FEC enforcement action, criminal prosecution, or both.

https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

From your link:

Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer "exemption" as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone. The Commission has addressed applicability of this exemption to several situations involving volunteer activity by a foreign national, as explained below.

In AO 2014-20 (Make Your Laws PAC), the Commission concluded that a political action committee could accept assistance from a foreign national in developing intellectual property for the PAC, such as trademarks, graphics, and website design because the services accepted by the PAC would fall under the volunteer exemption. Similarly, in AO 2004-26 (Weller), the Commission held that a foreign national could attend, speak at campaign events for a federal candidate, and solicit contributions to the campaign. However, the Commission cautioned that the foreign national could not manage or participate in any of the campaign committee’s decision-making processes. See also AOs 2007-22 (Hurysz) and 1987-25 (Otaola).

In MUR 5987, the Commission examined a situation in which a foreign national provided an uncompensated musical concert performance as a volunteer for a federal candidate’s campaign as part of a fundraising event. The candidate’s campaign had paid all of the costs of hosting the concert, including the rental of the venue and equipment and providing security. The performer had merely provided his uncompensated volunteer services to the campaign and had not participated in any of the campaign’s decision-making. Based on these facts, the Commission found no reason to believe that the foreign national or the federal candidate’s committee had violated the Act’s foreign national prohibition.

I know you have direct experience in campaign finance matters that I don't have, Aglaopheme, but it would seem from the above examples that at least SOME "things of value" may be freely offered on a volunteer basis as long as no compensation is exchanged or the foreign national is actively participating in the decision making of the campaign. I mean, my God, the above musician in the concert performance example was providing volunteer services to a campaign fundraising event!

It's hard to believe that is allowable, but that the federal government is going to criminally prosecute individuals within a campaign for merely receiving damaging information on an opposition candidate when that information has not been specifically contracted for as part of a services agreement with the campaign or financially compensated in return.

In short, if "other thing of value" is going to be interpreted as "mere knowledge of valuable information only provided to a campaign," then we need some court cases or FEC decisions specifically endorsing that principle.

To my knowledge, there aren't any, but if you know differently, toss 'em our way.

 

[about_average]

From your link:


I know you have direct experience in campaign finance matters that I don't have, Aglaopheme, but it would seem from the above examples that at least SOME "things of value" may be freely offered on a volunteer basis as long as no compensation is exchanged or the foreign national is actively participating in the decision making of the campaign. I mean, my God, the above musician in the concert performance example was providing volunteer services to a campaign fundraising event!

It's hard to believe that is allowable, but that the federal government is going to criminally prosecute individuals within a campaign for merely receiving damaging information on an opposition candidate when that information has not been specifically contracted for as part of a services agreement with the campaign or financially compensated in return.

In short, if "other thing of value" is going to be interpreted as "mere knowledge of valuable information only provided to a campaign," then we need some court cases or FEC decisions specifically endorsing that principle.

To my knowledge, there aren't any, but if you know differently, toss 'em our way.

I'm pretty sure using illegally obtained, especially when you know it was illegally obtained, information is a violation.
At least that's what a person, who's business is opposition research, said in an interview earlier this year.
I would imagine a person who does it for a living knows what's legal and not legal.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I'm pretty sure using illegally obtained, especially when you know it was illegally obtained, information is a violation.
At least that's what a person, who's business is opposition research, said in an interview earlier this year.
I would imagine a person who does it for a living knows what's legal and not legal.

You would hope, but an even better source of knowledge is the FEC, who's past policies and DECISIONS on campaign volunteering by foreign persons are the ones I cited.

So far, there is no evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign obtained such "illegally obtained" information. Whether such arguably illegal receipt of information was considered (and rejected) in a meeting that someone subsequently lied about to the FBI is a separate criminal matter which ONLY implicates the person(s) who lied to the FBI or to Congress under oath.

No one else in the meeting who heard or even expressed an opinion on a "crime" that never took place is going to be criminally liable for anything.