R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Exactly.
However, you are willing to condemn a person whose politics and person you hate, for commission of a crime when you admittedly have no idea what crime to accuse him of.
- Status
However, you are willing to condemn a person whose politics and person you hate, for commission of a crime when you admittedly have no idea what crime to accuse him of.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The last fifty years?
I’m not talking about all “federal investigations”; only those directed by “special prosecutors”. My argument is not that they’re “invalid” legally. Some argue that they’re not constitutional, but I’m not maintaining that here. What I am saying is hat, of the three “special prosecutor” investigations, not one has resulted in a conviction of the person against whom it was started to begin with, and two ended up in chasing after charges not related to the ostensible purpose of the “investigation”.
And even in the Watergate investigation, the key in that was the revelation of Butterfield who, I believe, came forward on his own. But for that, Nixon would have skated.
So I would argue that at least 66 2/3% of them end up “off the mark”, if not 100%.
J
Jig_Saw
Guest
No, I condemn him because I am a patriot and attempting to get dirt on your political opponent is a traitorous behavior even if it is turns out to be technically not criminal. Real patriotic Americans would never vote for someone who shows a willingness to collude with a hostile foreign government.
The only question to me is whether he is technically guilty of a crime - not whether or not he deserves condemnation.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
All politicians and their allies “attempt to get dirt” on their political opponents. If that’s traitorous, then they are all traitors. And your test of “real patriotic Americans” would have excluded voting for either of the Clintons.
J
Jig_Saw
Guest
You’re missing the point. It isn’t traitorous to get dirt on your political enemies; it is traitorous to attempt to get that dirt from a hostile foreign government. Any real patriotic American would not support colluding with a foreign government for the American presidential election.
N
niceatheist
Guest
How many special prosecutors have been appointed in the last 50 years?niceatheist:
The last fifty years?
I’m not talking about all “federal investigations”; only those directed by “special prosecutors”. My argument is not that they’re “invalid” legally. Some argue that they’re not constitutional, but I’m not maintaining that here. What I am saying is hat, of the three “special prosecutor” investigations, not one has resulted in a conviction of the person against whom it was started to begin with, and two ended up in chasing after charges not related to the ostensible purpose of the “investigation”.
And even in the Watergate investigation, the key in that was the revelation of Butterfield who, I believe, came forward on his own. But for that, Nixon would have skated.
So I would argue that at least 66 2/3% of them end up “off the mark”, if not 100%.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
If, say, Chuck Schumer was given proof positive by some Russian or Chinese of some impeachable offense committed by Trump, you would consider Schumer a patriot and a hero for accepting it and bringing it forward.
J
Jig_Saw
Guest
This is the same argument that you made last time we talked about it. This is the job of law enforcement, not individual citizens. Why would Chuck Schumer get this information and expect to be believed (after all, the right wing media and Russian trolls will say he is lying)? If the FBI does it, that provides actionable evidence that the elected representatives can act on.
S
sallybutler
Guest
- He should turn it over to the FBI
- He should not solicit it
- He should turn over to the FBI or CIA that he was contacted, along with any information, especially if it wasn’t solicited. Let them deal with it. Isn’t that what McCain did with the infamous dossier.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
There was nothing to turn over to the FBI. He didn’t know what they were going to present. He just had it third hand that it was something damaging to Clinton, but not what it actually contained.
As it turned out, there was nothing of the sort offered. Had there been, we don’t know if he would have turned it over to the FBI or CIA, but it’s not unreasonable to think he would have if, say, it contained absolute proof that Hillary sold influence to Russia for that $150,000,000 Russia gave her.
S
sallybutler
Guest
I agree that we do not know if Trump Jr went to the meeting with the thought that if they gave him anything, he would turn it over to the proper authorities. We do not know if he went to the meeting with the thought if they gave him anything, he would use it.
It is not the actual meeting but why he was going to the meeting. One reason is intent to trap the people (which he really should have gotten help from the FBI or CIA to do) and the other is intent to participate in illegal activities.
You know as well as I do that conspiracy to commit an act is what lands many people in jail. Think of the people who are in jail for conspiring to hire someone to murder someone else, or the people in jail for conspiring to blow up Sears Tower (btw, people who may have had a hard time tying their own shoes, if the reports of that one were at all accurate).
It is not the actual meeting but why he was going to the meeting. One reason is intent to trap the people (which he really should have gotten help from the FBI or CIA to do) and the other is intent to participate in illegal activities.
You know as well as I do that conspiracy to commit an act is what lands many people in jail. Think of the people who are in jail for conspiring to hire someone to murder someone else, or the people in jail for conspiring to blow up Sears Tower (btw, people who may have had a hard time tying their own shoes, if the reports of that one were at all accurate).
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
One has to remember that to commit the crime of “conspiracy” one has to conspire to commit a crime. Receiving information from a Russian is not a crime unless the information received is evidence of yet another crime and one does not disclose it to authorities. So, if the Russian had given him clear evidence of influence peddling by Clinton, for example, he would have been required by law to turn it over to law enforcement. But he didn’t know what the supposed bearer of information had until it turned out she had nothing.
There can’t be “conspiracy” to commit a crime in the absence of a crime or willing participation in planning a crime.
S
sallybutler
Guest
So you are agreeing that conspiring to receive something, even if it wasn’t received, would be a crime.
My understanding is that if a campaign receives anything (underline any thing) of value from a foreign nation or national, it is a federal crime. Value doesn’t necessarily mean tangible, it can also mean knowledge, access, and other non-touchable things.
My understanding is that if a campaign receives anything (underline any thing) of value from a foreign nation or national, it is a federal crime. Value doesn’t necessarily mean tangible, it can also mean knowledge, access, and other non-touchable things.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
As to your first sentence, I do not agree. If I “conspire” with you to receive a copy of the Shanghai Times (if there is such a paper), there’s no crime because having a copy of it is not a crime.
The statute you’re talking about does talk about “anything of value”, but other parts of the law state that “of value” means “property”, not intangibles like information or an expression of support. It’s aimed at prohibiting receipt of money or other forms of financial support from a foreign source to support a political campaign. Nobody has ever been convicted of violation for receiving mere information, and rightly so. Under Federal Election Commission rulings, “services” by foreigners are not prohibited.
Last edited:
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
Good points. If the Russian source had true information about Hillary and the Trump campaign did not promise or give any official US government favors in exchange for it, what exactly is the problem?
J
josie_L
Guest
Can you explain what that law is because I 've read much regarding this and no one lawyer indicated that he broke the law? Collusion does not necessarily mean criminality.
Criminal behaviour does not mean “collusion with Russia” to perpetrate electoral fraud.
Last edited:
J
josie_L
Guest
Well, if that’s the case relying on a Russian sourced dossier provided by Russian government officials is treasonous, and that means the Democrats are the guilty party.
J
Jig_Saw
Guest
I posted the law above. You can look it up from that. As far as criminal behavior, taking help from a foreign government or a foreign national is illegal. That’s what Trump Jr tried to do.
T
Theo520
Guest
Sally, what is even remotely illegal about meeting with a russian to hear what dirt they have on Hillary?
Nothing has indicated he commissioned illegal hacking to obtain the DNC or Hillary secrets.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Just wrong.
It is perfectly legal to accept voluntary “services” from foreigners in connection with federal political campaigns, and it’s pretty wide-ranging. The Russian lobbyist was paid nothing, was offered nothing, presented nothing tangible of value and promised nothing tangible of value. Another party suggested that she might have useful information, but she didn’t. I realize some hate Trump Jr just because he’s Trump’s son, but it’s not a crime to be Trump’s son.
Nobody has ever been prosecuted for receiving information relevant to a campaign from a foreign source.
But that doesn’t mean nobody will be indicted in all of this. That’s what special prosecutors do; dig until they can find a way to charge somebody with something, however irrelevant to the ostensible purposes of the “investigation” might be and no matter how tangential the person charged might be.
It’s just a way to punish one’s political enemies.
- Status