The Infamous Russian Dossier

[Hypoxia]

Why don't you explain it to us?

But then she would have to kill you.

Ignorance is bliss here.

Survive.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Really? I would have thought you, of all people, could see the difference.

So much has already come to light about what was said in the dossier. I had never considered that what was published was not the entirety of Steele's raw data. I makes sense to me now having read it. I posted a bit, but this article covers a lot more from the dossier that have been proven to be true. Keep in mind, this was published back in early September.

https://www.justsecurity.org/44697/steele-dossier-knowing/

I can. Here's the difference. From your link:

Of course, to determine if collusion occurred as alleged in the dossier, we would have to know if the Trump campaign continued to meet with Russian representatives subsequent to the June meeting.[for the purpose of committing a criminal act (emphasis added)] As mentioned, in February, the New York Times, CNN, and Reuters, reported that members of Trump’s campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian officials in the year before the election, according to current and former American officials. Subsequent reports cite receipt of intelligence from European security agencies reporting on odd meetings between Trump associates and Russian officials in Europe. And, perhaps the best clue that there might be something to the narrative of meetings in summer 2016 was former CIA Director John Brennan’s carefully chosen phrase in front of the Senate intelligence committee about the contacts – “frequently, people who go along a treasonous path do not know they are on a treasonous path until it is too late.”

"Repeated contacts" and "odd meetings" don't mean shit if the content of those meetings is not known to constitute criminal INTENT. Which is also, not so incidentally, the element which John Brennan forgot to include in his "treasonous path." The very definition of treason does not allow people to commit it unknowingly.

It is every bit as absurd as speculating upon an "inadvertent premeditated murder."

 

[Hypoxia]

"Repeated contacts" and "odd meetings" don't mean shit if the content of those meetings is not known to constitute criminal INTENT. Which is also, not so incidentally, the element which John Brennan forgot to include in his "treasonous path." The very definition of treason does not allow people to commit it unknowingly.

But the path likely includes inducements, bribery, coercion, a trail of crumbs leading our cookie astray, till they reach a tipping point. Are they pushed, or do they take the bait willingly? Is motivation important?

By now, the parties involved know that USA Intel agencies have established Russian election tampering, and that Putin's defense minister and Tromp's UN ambassador have both declared that Russia is waging war on the US. Supporting Russia strikes me as treasonous.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

But the path likely includes inducements, bribery, coercion, a trail of crumbs leading our cookie astray, till they reach a tipping point. Are they pushed, or do they take the bait willingly? Is motivation important?

By now, the parties involved know that USA Intel agencies have established Russian election tampering, and that Putin's defense minister and Tromp's UN ambassador have both declared that Russia is waging war on the US. Supporting Russia strikes me as treasonous.

Yes, motivation is terribly important. And that motivation which is important is to follow the law. Little else matters.

It really is this simple. If YOU are running for political office and the Russians hate your opponent and seek to do everything in their power to seek your victory and your opponent's defeat, YOUR independent efforts to defeat your opponent are not inherently criminal because you and the Russians happen to share a mutual interest. And your continued efforts to defeat your opponent would be unfairly criticized as "supporting Russia."

Direct collaboration WITH Russia in pursuit of that mutual interest is also NOT inherently criminal, depending on what form that collaboration takes. There, indeed, are numerous collaborative efforts that may well BE criminal. To make certain neither you nor your campaign engage in such conduct, it would bode you well to retain the services of one or more attorneys specializing in federal election law. As long as YOU stay on the right side of the law, what other obligation do you have?

We will continue to have elections in this country. Russia and many other countries will likely decide they, as well as we, have an interest in how they turn out.

So are you telling me that every future American candidate that Russia believes BEST serves their interest SHOULD BE summarily defeated or disqualified on that basis alone? Is your vote and mine potentially discredited by the mere perception and efforts legal or otherwise by a foreign government? Is theirs the only opinion that matters?

Russia in one way or another has always "waged war" on America and the west since the overthrow of the czars. Efforts by American Presidents and Congresses since have varied widely in their effectiveness at fighting back.

So? You want to void Jimmy Carter's government pension?

 

[about_average]

I guess their defense can be, "Everyone who made up our campaign staff, from the candidate on down, are too clueless about morals and US law to know we were doing anything wrong."
At least that will get them out of the treason issue.

I really wonder how useful Trump's "extreme vetting" of immigrants will be when you consider he couldn't even perform basic vetting on his staff.

 

[Aglaopheme]

I can. Here's the difference. From your link:



"Repeated contacts" and "odd meetings" don't mean shit if the content of those meetings is not known to constitute criminal INTENT. Which is also, not so incidentally, the element which John Brennan forgot to include in his "treasonous path." The very definition of treason does not allow people to commit it unknowingly.

It is every bit as absurd as speculating upon an "inadvertent premeditated murder."

And, they know once it's too late.

None of that refers to the difference between hiring a US oppo research firm and soliciting oppo research directly from a hostile foreign agent.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Yes, motivation is terribly important. And that motivation which is important is to follow the law. Little else matters.

It really is this simple. If YOU are running for political office and the Russians hate your opponent and seek to do everything in their power to seek your victory and your opponent's defeat, YOUR independent efforts to defeat your opponent are not inherently criminal because you and the Russians happen to share a mutual interest. And your continued efforts to defeat your opponent would be unfairly criticized as "supporting Russia."

Direct collaboration WITH Russia in pursuit of that mutual interest is also NOT inherently criminal, depending on what form that collaboration takes. There, indeed, are numerous collaborative efforts that may well BE criminal. To make certain neither you nor your campaign engage in such conduct, it would bode you well to retain the services of one or more attorneys specializing in federal election law. As long as YOU stay on the right side of the law, what other obligation do you have?

We will continue to have elections in this country. Russia and many other countries will likely decide they, as well as we, have an interest in how they turn out.

So are you telling me that every future American candidate that Russia believes BEST serves their interest SHOULD BE summarily defeated or disqualified on that basis alone? Is your vote and mine potentially discredited by the mere perception and efforts legal or otherwise by a foreign government? Is theirs the only opinion that matters?

Russia in one way or another has always "waged war" on America and the west since the overthrow of the czars. Efforts by American Presidents and Congresses since have varied widely in their effectiveness at fighting back.

So? You want to void Jimmy Carter's government pension?

No one is even remotely suggesting that. But, I can tick off that okay, so I guess [insert wild exaggeration] is what you want? bingo box, now.

 

[about_average]

None of that refers to the difference between hiring a US oppo research firm and soliciting oppo research directly from a hostile foreign agent.

I suspect that where the research comes from doesn't matter (legally) provided it's not illegally obtained.
Emails from the DNC server would have been illegally obtained and pleading ignorant, I would hope, would be no defense.

 

[Aglaopheme]

I suspect that where the research comes from doesn't matter (legally) provided it's not illegally obtained.
Emails from the DNC server would have been illegally obtained and pleading ignorant, I would hope, would be no defense.

I was strictly talking about the difference in complaints filed with the FEC. The one against Hillary and the DNC is about how the payment for the dossier was disclosed. The one against Jr and friend's is for directly soliciting a contribution from a foreign national. These things are not even remotely the same. I'm interested to see the outcomes.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I guess their defense can be, "Everyone who made up our campaign staff, from the candidate on down, are too clueless about morals and US law to know we were doing anything wrong."
At least that will get them out of the treason issue.

I really wonder how useful Trump's "extreme vetting" of immigrants will be when you consider he couldn't even perform basic vetting on his staff.

I don't think you and I could ever satisfactorily parse the precise details and extent of morality vis-a-vis opposition research in a political campaign. As for federal law, how well-versed are you on the issue? To my knowledge, the relevant statutes surrounding this brouhaha are only 52 U.S.C. 30121, & 36 U.S.C. 510. These represent the primary context of political collusion with foreign agents or governments. Any other bribery or money laundering acts would be prohibited by other standard criminal statutes.

And the above referenced statutes are clearly aimed at prohibiting foreign MONEY from flowing into a U. S. political campaign and any "other thing of value" that has a specific monetary value that could presumably be identified and quantified. That is clearly the purpose of the law, and all this business about using it to prohibit any and all influence of foreign agents within American political campaigns is simply false. In an earlier post within this thread I posted with regard to no less than three FEC decisions (http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=88257890&postcount=98) that allowed and clarified foreign agent activity in U. S. political campaigns. All of those examples allowed for actions that are far more glaring in their APPARENT violation of 52 USC 30121 than the mere uncompensated communication of adverse information on a political opponent.

And Trump & Co. "get out of" the treason issue not only based on a lack of requisite intent, but just as importantly on our lack of a state of WAR with the Russian government, whether declared or undeclared. And, by that, the treason statute clearly intends a state of direct armed combat between American and enemy forces.

I don't think the Trump campaign was "clueless" about any of that. Be that as it may, if they were, there is precious little evidence so far that they are criminally liable under those statutes.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

....

What are the damaging facts in this dossier?

I asked that question sincerely, and no one has replied. I find this curious. If this dossier is so full of damaging facts to Trump (I have even heard people say it's a basis for impeachment), wouldn't people here want to crow about it?

Or is this another case where the left claims something but, when asked for verifiable specifics, cannot produce them?

Is the third time a charm?

I'll ask again: What true allegations are contained in "The Infamous Russian Dossier" that establish Trump did anything unethical, immoral, or illegal?

 

[Hypoxia]

Is the third time a charm?

I'll ask again: What true allegations are contained in "The Infamous Russian Dossier" that establish Trump did anything unethical, immoral, or illegal?

I've not read it and likely won't. Not my job. From the Wikipedia entry there's a link to the dossier as published by Buzzfeed. Anyone so interested can dig out the alleged crimes.

 

[LocalHoney]

The dossier in question, a fallacious and slanderous document, is an example of what our "intelligence services" do all day. Tell lies. CIA is the problem.

 

[about_average]

I don't think you and I could ever satisfactorily parse the precise details and extent of morality vis-a-vis opposition research in a political campaign. As for federal law, how well-versed are you on the issue? To my knowledge, the relevant statutes surrounding this brouhaha are only 52 U.S.C. 30121, & 36 U.S.C. 510. These represent the primary context of political collusion with foreign agents or governments. Any other bribery or money laundering acts would be prohibited by other standard criminal statutes.

And the above referenced statutes are clearly aimed at prohibiting foreign MONEY from flowing into a U. S. political campaign and any "other thing of value" that has a specific monetary value that could presumably be identified and quantified. That is clearly the purpose of the law, and all this business about using it to prohibit any and all influence of foreign agents within American political campaigns is simply false. In an earlier post within this thread I posted with regard to no less than three FEC decisions (http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=88257890&postcount=98) that allowed and clarified foreign agent activity in U. S. political campaigns. All of those examples allowed for actions that are far more glaring in their APPARENT violation of 52 USC 30121 than the mere uncompensated communication of adverse information on a political opponent.

And Trump & Co. "get out of" the treason issue not only based on a lack of requisite intent, but just as importantly on our lack of a state of WAR with the Russian government, whether declared or undeclared. And, by that, the treason statute clearly intends a state of direct armed combat between American and enemy forces.

I don't think the Trump campaign was "clueless" about any of that. Be that as it may, if they were, there is precious little evidence so far that they are criminally liable under those statutes.

On the morals issue, seeking likely illegally obtained information on a candidate from a foreign government is pretty straight forward. As is trying to set up a direct channel to the Kremlin from within the Russian embassy.

On the legal front, I've never claimed anyone committed treason. I was just referencing a previous comment that even if it was technically, there has to be intent. Which I find strange anyway considering that ignorance of most laws isn't a defense.

Also on the legal front, using illegally obtained information, like Trump Jr's goal when he met the Russian in Trump tower. Yes, what he did wasn't against the law, but his goal was to likely break the law.

There is a LOT of smoke in the White House. Rarely is there a lot of smoke when there is no fire.

 

[WoundedKnee]

More examples of, I cannot define pornography, but I know it when I see it. Basically someone here just 'wants' it to be true.

 

[about_average]

More examples of, I cannot define pornography, but I know it when I see it. Basically someone here just 'wants' it to be true.

No, I KNOW that attempting to obtain likely illegally acquired information to use in a campaign is immoral.

Just as immoral as trying to break in to someone's house to rob it. The fact you can't get in makes it no less immoral.

I don't "want" it to be true, I'm not even claiming there was collusion. Unlike the people who claim there was "absolutely no collusion".

 

[WoundedKnee]

I could give a shit. I just hate conspiracy theorists.

 

[WoundedKnee]

On the upside, you'd fit right in at Denny's. Most of the gang doesn't read or follow the news, but they always have the answer.

 

[about_average]

I could give a shit. I just hate conspiracy theorists.

Good deflection when shown you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[WoundedKnee]

I don't give a shit. I'm new here and I've already figured out that you just cannot make a post about anything without finding a way to weave Trump into it. If there was a cucumber recipe thread, you'd figure out a way to blame Trump for the shortage of recipes.

 

[about_average]

I don't give a shit. I'm new here and I've already figured out that you just cannot make a post about anything without finding a way to weave Trump into it. If there was a cucumber recipe thread, you'd figure out a way to blame Trump for the shortage of recipes.

You're new and I've already figured out you're a dumb fuck.

Aside from the fact that you're wrong on the face of it, this thread is about something that relates to Trump.
So if you don't like it, don't read this thread.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Yes it relates to Trump inasmuch as Santa Clause is the reason for the season.

I might be a dumb fuck, but its better than being an angry hateful fuck.

 

[about_average]

Yes it relates to Trump inasmuch as Santa Clause is the reason for the season.

Reading isn't your strong suit is it?

There're two separate chapters to this story. The first began in October 2015 when Republican-partisan website the Washington Free Beacon retained Fusion GPS to do political opposition research on Republicans running for that Party's presidential nomination in the last election. The WFB was founded as a non-profit with never-Trumper Bill Kristol among its original backers; it's now a for-profit with "GOP mega-donor [and never-Trumper] Paul Singer" allegedly funding it. Singer supported Marc Rubio for the Republican nomination. After Ted Cruz dropped out of the race on May 3, with John Kasich dropping out the next day and leaving Trump as the obvious GOP nominee, the Washington Free Beacon ended its retainer with Fusion GPS.

BTW, that's from the OP.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

On the morals issue, seeking likely illegally obtained information on a candidate from a foreign government is pretty straight forward. As is trying to set up a direct channel to the Kremlin from within the Russian embassy.

On the legal front, I've never claimed anyone committed treason. I was just referencing a previous comment that even if it was technically, there has to be intent. Which I find strange anyway considering that ignorance of most laws isn't a defense.

Also on the legal front, using illegally obtained information, like Trump Jr's goal when he met the Russian in Trump tower. Yes, what he did wasn't against the law, but his goal was to likely break the law.

There is a LOT of smoke in the White House. Rarely is there a lot of smoke when there is no fire.

Three points:

The fact that someone, even a foreign government, might have desirable "dirt" on an opposition candidate says not one thing about whether that information was acquired illegally. Since Trump, Jr. never even got into a "substantive" discussion on information that clearly had no substance, it is highly prejudicial to cast him as seeking illegally acquired information. You can charge him with being callously indifferent as to how "it" was acquired, but we don't even know that because the conversation never progressed to the obvious point where a reasonable person might ask, "Where and how did you guys get this?"

Secondly, there is nothing inherently controversial about a diplomatic "back channel" to the Kremlin through embassy channels or even distinctly apart from embassy channels. The controversy in Trump's case was that they actually considered doing it weeks BEFORE Trump was inaugurated. With respect to the outgoing Obama administration, that would have been a tacky move to say the least if not problematic from a legal standpoint. Which are two good reasons for not having done it, which they didn't.

Finally, "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a mantra applicable ONLY to those laws (largely misdemeanors) for which there is no mens rea requirement. They're called "strict liability" statutes. You exceed the speed limit, you get a ticket and nothing about your intent to violate that law or even your knowledge of it is relevant evidence in establishing your guilt. They are clearly distinguishable from most felonies where criminal intent is a required element of the crime.

 

[about__aveage]

The fact that someone, even a foreign government, might have desirable "dirt" on an opposition candidate says not one thing about whether that information was acquired illegally. Since Trump, Jr. never even got into a "substantive" discussion on information that clearly had no substance, it is highly prejudicial to cast him as seeking illegally acquired information. You can charge him with being callously indifferent as to how "it" was acquired, but we don't even know that because the conversation never progressed to the obvious point where a reasonable person might ask, "Where and how did you guys get this?"

The way the information was described to him suggested that it wasn't publicly available information. Yes, it could have been something from the Kremlin about conversations Clinton had with Russia which might not have been illegally obtained.
But if it was from a source in the US it would have been illegally obtained for it to be "highly sensitive".

Secondly, there is nothing inherently controversial about a diplomatic "back channel" to the Kremlin through embassy channels or even distinctly apart from embassy channels. The controversy in Trump's case was that they actually considered doing it weeks BEFORE Trump was inaugurated. With respect to the outgoing Obama administration, that would have been a tacky move to say the least if not problematic from a legal standpoint. Which are two good reasons for not having done it, which they didn't.

Exactly.

Finally, "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a mantra applicable ONLY to those laws (largely misdemeanors) for which there is no mens rea requirement. They're called "strict liability" statutes. You exceed the speed limit, you get a ticket and nothing about your intent to violate that law or even your knowledge of it is relevant evidence in establishing your guilt. They are clearly distinguishable from most felonies where criminal intent is a required element of the crime.

Yes, but I wouldn't put it past them to plead ignorance. In fact they have about other things, "Hey, we're new at this."