Collusion

[Phelia]

If it's innocent, if it's "such a nothing," if DJT is all about being transparent, why didn't they tell us about the other people in the room? Why do the stories keep changing? Why do they continue to lie? Why do all of them forget to disclose their meetings? Why does every explanation introduce more questions than it answers? What the fuck is going on inside our white house?

 

[Hypoxia]

What the fuck is going on inside our white house?

I suspect brain-eating microbes.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Bullshit.

Ishmael

"The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin."


"If it's what you say I love it"

Okey dokey.

Nice glossing over of that whole 1st Amendment thing, though.

 

[Phelia]

I suspect brain-eating microbes.

They must be starving ):

 

[Aglaopheme]

If it's innocent, if it's "such a nothing," if DJT is all about being transparent, why didn't they tell us about the other people in the room? Why do the stories keep changing? Why do they continue to lie? Why do all of them forget to disclose their meetings? Why does every explanation introduce more questions than it answers? What the fuck is going on inside our white house?

No one really knows, Mueller appears to be all over them now.

 

[Aglaopheme]

They must be starving ):

Ha! I'm choking/laughing over here.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Someone coming up to you = flying half way around the world to me you?

Scandalous rumor = "If it's what you say I love it"?

You've no idea if it was well researched information or not. Donald Jr sure seemed to think it was valuable information. You've been down playing the information passed and the person passing the information all throughout this thread. You also somehow managed to quote an article that only had "experts" that agreed with you, while everything else I have read had at least one opposing view.



Also, when did the 1st Anendment start applying to foreign nationals?

Could we, for the purposes of this discussion, at least temporarily table the question of whether anyone named Trump did or did not commit a criminal act so that we might objectively examine what generically does or does not constitute a criminal act according to the USC and CFRs?

As I recall, you have experience with campaign finance laws and issues, so let me ask you a direct question. Is there not a distinction between an ongoing, professionally organized opposition research campaign that would clearly fall under the regulations governing in-kind contributions and/or the prohibition against being contributed or donated by foreign nationals and mere individual snippets of information being passed on by "informants" in no way associated with the political campaign?

And by "informants" I mean someone who happens to merely possess strategic opposition information essentially as a matter of circumstance rather than someone who laboriously goes digging for it and who, after passing it on, has no further interest, role or involvement in that campaign. Is it your experience that the information supplied by such an individual, as a matter of campaign finance law, MUST be declared and appraised "as a thing" of value each and every time regardless of the nature of the information and in direct equitable comparison to the professional researcher?

Many people are suggesting that. Have you found it to be a legal obligation that you or other campaign treasurers have had to satisfy?

 

[Aglaopheme]

Could we, for the purposes of this discussion, at least temporarily table the question of whether anyone named Trump did or did not commit a criminal act so that we might objectively examine what generically does or does not constitute a criminal act according to the USC and CFRs?

As I recall, you have experience with campaign finance laws and issues, so let me ask you a direct question. Is there not a distinction between an ongoing, professionally organized opposition research campaign that would clearly fall under the regulations governing in-kind contributions and/or the prohibition against being contributed or donated by foreign nationals and mere individual snippets of information being passed on by "informants" in no way associated with the political campaign?

And by "informants" I mean someone who happens to merely possess strategic opposition information essentially as a matter of circumstance rather than someone who laboriously goes digging for it and who, after passing it on, has no further interest, role or involvement in that campaign. Is it your experience that the information supplied by such an individual, as a matter of campaign finance law, MUST be declared and appraised "as a thing" of value each and every time regardless of the nature of the information and in direct equitable comparison to the professional researcher?

Many people are suggesting that. Have you found it to be a legal obligation that you or other campaign treasurers have had to satisfy?

Folks regularly do opposition research that are not professionals, and have zero ties to the campaign before or after. Fun fact, I've done it myself for a few campaigns, and once was covering Donald jr.

 

[about_average]

But to equate the obvious value of a systematic, organized research campaign, with someone coming up to you with a scandalous rumor about your opponent that turns out to be true and then the FEC trying place a value on it as an in-kind contribution, or, in the instance of it having come from a foreign national, criminalize that person's basic right to communicate with you, is also out of bounds, and really is not what the law intended.

You're missing my point it seems.

First., "in-kind" contributions. They most certainly do have monetary value. The IRS has tax codes about valuing such things.

Secondly, it's not illegal to meet with foreign nationals and I don't know who's claiming it is. It is a violation for people filling out SF-86 to not list them.
In any case, "communicating with" a foreign national even for a "scandalous rumor" isn't on the same level as receiving illegally obtained information from a hostile government.

I'm not claiming he did anything illegal (that's up to Muller to decide if there's enough evidence) and it wasn't from a just a foreign national. He believed it was from the Russian government, and only a complete idiot would think something billed as "very high level and sensitive information" wasn't illegally obtained.

So his goal was to break the law. He may not have known, himself, that he was meeting to do something illegal, but he certainly knew it was unethical and anti-American. And there were others present, like Manafort, who most certainly would have know it was illegal.

And now Trump's lawyer hinted that Trump himself was at the meeting, claiming that if these Russians were so bad, the Secret Service wouldn't have let them in the room for the meeting. Except the Secret service weren't detailed to protect any of the people so far admitted to being in the meeting.
Why would the Secret Service be there if no protectee was there?

Also, if it was totally cool what he was doing, why has Trump Jr. constantly lied about who was there?

 

[Rightguide]

If it's innocent, if it's "such a nothing," if DJT is all about being transparent, why didn't they tell us about the other people in the room? Why do the stories keep changing? Why do they continue to lie? Why do all of them forget to disclose their meetings? Why does every explanation introduce more questions than it answers? What the fuck is going on inside our white house?

No law or election law was violated. When the Ukrainian gov't actually conspired with the Clinton campaign to undermine the Trump campaign, no law was broken there either.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Folks regularly do opposition research that are not professionals, and have zero ties to the campaign before or after. Fun fact, I've done it myself for a few campaigns, and once was covering Donald jr.

Okay, I get that. But I am still searching for how we do or do not legally split the hair as to whether the mere communication of an isolated piece of information equates to that of "opposition research" that necessarily falls within the purview of campaign finance laws.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You're missing my point it seems.

First., "in-kind" contributions. They most certainly do have monetary value. The IRS has tax codes about valuing such things.

Secondly, it's not illegal to meet with foreign nationals and I don't know who's claiming it is. It is a violation for people filling out SF-86 to not list them.
In any case, "communicating with" a foreign national even for a "scandalous rumor" isn't on the same level as receiving illegally obtained information from a hostile government.

I'm not claiming he did anything illegal (that's up to Muller to decide if there's enough evidence) and it wasn't from a just a foreign national. He believed it was from the Russian government, and only a complete idiot would think something billed as "very high level and sensitive information" wasn't illegally obtained.

So his goal was to break the law. He may not have known, himself, that he was meeting to do something illegal, but he certainly knew it was unethical and anti-American. And there were others present, like Manafort, who most certainly would have know it was illegal.

And now Trump's lawyer hinted that Trump himself was at the meeting, claiming that if these Russians were so bad, the Secret Service wouldn't have let them in the room for the meeting. Except the Secret service weren't detailed to protect any of the people so far admitted to being in the meeting.
Why would the Secret Service be there if no protectee was there?

Also, if it was totally cool what he was doing, why has Trump Jr. constantly lied about who was there?

Gotcha. I fully appreciate the distinction between scandalous rumor and illegal information from a foreign government. But I still think it MIGHT be a stretch to assume that "sensitive information from a very high level" was necessarily illegally obtained. And yet, having said that, someone exercising do diligence and erring on the side of caution OUGHT to assume that very thing.

But like you say, it remains to be seen if any illegality occurred, because I don't think "intent" or "attempt" (God, let's not get into that again...) is relevant in the statutes, even if the candidate himself was stupid enough to have dropped in.

As for SF-86, it is my understanding it is common to supplement that information after initial submission. It is also my understanding that it is essentially "advisory" in nature to the person exercising authority to grant the security access classification. That's not to minimize the clear penalties for falsification in completing the form. It merely returns the focus that if the President wants his son to have the access, that is in all likelihood what is going to happen.

But back to the meeting.... Legalities aside, if candidate Trump DID enter that meeting at any point, I don't even want to think about the shit storm that is going to ensue.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Okay, I get that. But I am still searching for how we do or do not legally split the hair as to whether the mere communication of an isolated piece of information equates to that of "opposition research" that necessarily falls within the purview of campaign finance laws.

Door hangers, lit and signs seem to fall under "thing of value".

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2007-22.pdf

 

[Hypoxia]

Okay, I get that. But I am still searching for how we do or do not legally split the hair as to whether the mere communication of an isolated piece of information equates to that of "opposition research" that necessarily falls within the purview of campaign finance laws.

Legit oppo research uses legally-obtained info. Stolen and hacked files obtained from data felons or hostile foreign powers don't qualify. Solicitation of such illegally-obtained materials, whether delivered or not, is a criminal act. Methinks Don Jr should have left oppo research to the pros and not gone free-lancing. Putin staged a nice clean hit on Team Tromp.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Door hangers, lit and signs seem to fall under "thing of value".

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2007-22.pdf

Left over campaign materials are useless and of zero value to the campaign that produced them.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Door hangers, lit and signs seem to fall under "thing of value".

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2007-22.pdf

Left over campaign materials are useless and of zero value to the campaign that produced them.

Of course. Obviously. In both instances. But I still don't see how either of those examples are legally analogous to the isolated piece of campaign dirt in the form of verbal, written or photographic communication that is unsolicited or that, AFTER it is freely offered without solicitation, an affirmative response of "Yeah, I'd love to see that" constitutes "solicitation."

I know everyone thinks I'm obnoxiously defensive about this shit, and thinks I am being so for partisan purposes, but I'm not. This stuff is important if one is trying to discern the specific intent and reach of the law.

 

[about_average]

Okay, I get that. But I am still searching for how we do or do not legally split the hair as to whether the mere communication of an isolated piece of information equates to that of "opposition research" that necessarily falls within the purview of campaign finance laws.

Well, keep in mind it's Trump himself who is calling it "opposition research".

But like you say, it remains to be seen if any illegality occurred, because I don't think "intent" or "attempt" (God, let's not get into that again...) is relevant in the statutes, even if the candidate himself was stupid enough to have dropped in.

I have my doubts, based on what's publicly known to-date, that anything illegal occurred, but obviously that remains to be seen.

As for SF-86, it is my understanding it is common to supplement that information after initial submission. It is also my understanding that it is essentially "advisory" in nature to the person exercising authority to grant the security access classification. That's not to minimize the clear penalties for falsification in completing the form. It merely returns the focus that if the President wants his son to have the access, that is in all likelihood what is going to happen.

Yeah, though it's pretty amazing to me that Kushner could "forget" about such a meeting. I'm just calling BS on that.

But back to the meeting.... Legalities aside, if candidate Trump DID enter that meeting at any point, I don't even want to think about the shit storm that is going to ensue.

Ha, yeah. But he was at Trump Tower at the time of the meeting and I can't think of any reason the Secret Service would have any control on access to the meeting otherwise.
Of course, Trump's lawyer may have just been bullshitting again.

The other thing I want to do a bit of research on, but haven't had time, is the connections between some of Trump's statements around the time of the meeting.
Something like two days before the meeting Trump announced a big reveal the following week about Clinton. I've read claims that he then didn't make any big announcement about her. I want to see if that's actually true.
Because if it is, it's at least circumstantial evidence that he was counting on some real dirt on her to come from the meeting .
Add that to the fact that it's nearly inconceivable they wouldn't tell him about the upcoming meeting it would certainly suggest his "I only learned about it last week" was just another of his many lies.
After all, Trump, et al., don't know the meaning of "plausible deniability" (they seem to operate on the "implausible deniability" method)

 

[about_average]

Quo quid pro. No value received, no value given. Just that simple.

Please do try to keep up.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The other thing I want to do a bit of research on, but haven't had time, is the connections between some of Trump's statements around the time of the meeting.
Something like two days before the meeting Trump announced a big reveal the following week about Clinton. I've read claims that he then didn't make any big announcement about her. I want to see if that's actually true.
Because if it is, it's at least circumstantial evidence that he was counting on some real dirt on her to come from the meeting .
Add that to the fact that it's nearly inconceivable they wouldn't tell him about the upcoming meeting it would certainly suggest his "I only learned about it last week" was just another of his many lies.
After all, Trump, et al., don't know the meaning of "plausible deniability" (they seem to operate on the "implausible deniability" method)

I seem to remember something about that timing as well. It would not surprise me if it becomes the next shoe to drop. And, again, if true, it could well be one of those stupid things where the substance means less than the appearance. Which is still lame. If you dress yourself in the morning so that your dick doesn't show, how is it you're not coordinated enough to keep from getting it repeatedly caught in your zipper??

 

[water505]

Leftists love yanking each other's chain. They're the only ones who believe their Trump fantasies.

It's going to be a long three years for those people.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Of course. Obviously. In both instances. But I still don't see how either of those examples are legally analogous to the isolated piece of campaign dirt in the form of verbal, written or photographic communication that is unsolicited or that, AFTER it is freely offered without solicitation, an affirmative response of "Yeah, I'd love to see that" constitutes "solicitation."

I know everyone thinks I'm obnoxiously defensive about this shit, and thinks I am being so for partisan purposes, but I'm not. This stuff is important if one is trying to discern the specific intent and reach of the law.

It doesn't have to do with your quest to find the legal answers, at least not for me, it's your laguaging. Even your Jr quote above "yeah, I'd love to see that" is nothing like what he actually said "If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer.".

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

Leftists love yanking each other's chain. They're the only ones who believe their Trump fantasies.

It's going to be a long three years for those people.

Shut the fuck up, miles.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Well....poor fella.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Wednesday that he never would have appointed Attorney General Jeff Sessions had he known Mr. Sessions would recuse himself from overseeing the Russia investigation that has dogged his presidency, calling the decision “very unfair to the president.”

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-sessions-russia.html

 

[Kazakhstan]

http://i.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/james-corden-britney-1.gif

"This thread is simply fabulous!"

No doubt about it...

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It doesn't have to do with your quest to find the legal answers, at least not for me, it's your laguaging. Even your Jr quote above "yeah, I'd love to see that" is nothing like what he actually said "If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer.".

Granted, yours is the precisely accurate quote. And substantively speaking, that changes things how exactly?