- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Question for Dems re: Russia
Posted on 8/6/18 at 10:32 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Posted on 8/6/18 at 10:32 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
so, is it your current prediction that trump jr and jared kushner are going to be indicted?
I don't know honestly. I haven't followed the Russia conspiracy story as closely in the last few months as I've been too busy. Kushner by all accounts is leveraged up to his neck in the 666 property and allegedly falsely told prospective buyers that the percentage of units sold was higher than it actually was. That's a state level issue, we'll see what happens if that comes about.
Jr., well, if Bannon is right we may just see him indicted. Idk what Mueller's next steps are past the Manafort trials. Even if you don't like him, or the investigation, there's no denying Mueller is an expert at what he does given his track record. The one thing I'm sure of, for better or worse, is we're just getting started with it. This investigation will continue into 2019 and possibly 2020.
Edit: also forgot about Kusnher's revisions to his clearance forms. I forget how many it's been but it's comical how many revisions he's done and expected the reviewers to just accept the fact that he 'forgot'. Lying on those forms is a felony.
This post was edited on 8/6/18 at 10:35 pm
1
Posted on 8/6/18 at 10:34 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
there's no denying Mueller is an expert at what he does given his track record
You mean his track record of botched investigations and misconduct?? Seriously? This statement hurts your credibility
Posted on 8/6/18 at 10:35 pm to Strannix
You don't get to his level by being a fricking idiot if that's what you're implying
Posted on 8/6/18 at 10:42 pm to atlgamecockman
The charges he has brought so far make him look exactly that, an idiot
Posted on 8/6/18 at 10:42 pm to atlgamecockman
Your last link proves my point, not yours.
I just finished reading that entire paper and it is specific as to contributing monetary things of value. It even says foreign nationals can be paid to work in a campaign or volunteer to work in a campaign and that is not a violation. The section is all about prohibiting foreigners from making financial contributions to a campaign.
From your link:
The only services a foreign national is prohibited from providing to a campaing are "services cannot consist of participation in the decision-making process" of the campaign.
Again, if your interpretation was correct then Jr. would already have been indicted, IMO. Mueller would have already acted.
I just finished reading that entire paper and it is specific as to contributing monetary things of value. It even says foreign nationals can be paid to work in a campaign or volunteer to work in a campaign and that is not a violation. The section is all about prohibiting foreigners from making financial contributions to a campaign.
From your link:
quote:
Services by a Foreign National. Because services are not a contribution, not a donation of money, and not a thing of value, then services are not a prohibited item so that a foreign national can render services. The person (candidate) may even compensate the foreign national for such services from campaign funds as an authorized expenditure of the campaign
The only services a foreign national is prohibited from providing to a campaing are "services cannot consist of participation in the decision-making process" of the campaign.
quote:I appreciate you providing the link to that opinion. I feel completely vindicated.
The foreign national cannot manage any aspect of the campaign, including decisions about making contributions, donations, or expenditures, or decisions about receipts and disbursements.
Again, if your interpretation was correct then Jr. would already have been indicted, IMO. Mueller would have already acted.
This post was edited on 8/6/18 at 10:57 pm
Posted on 8/6/18 at 10:45 pm to atlgamecockman
Wow owned by RUSSIAN
Posted on 8/6/18 at 10:57 pm to LSURussian
I honestly appreciate you reading that whole thing. That's what's necessary for a real discussion. However, I disagree with your analysis in 2 significant ways.
1) I am not focused on the foreign nationals, nor should the courts be. They should be focused on why a US citizen (Don Jr) solicited anything of value from a foreign national. We'll leave it to the courts/Mueller to interpret 'thing of value' and 'service' from here since obviously you and I will have no hand in making those determinations.
2) I am not sure how you interpret dirt on hillary as "not a thing of value". There was intelligence that was supposedly going to be provided (thing of value, by my interpretation) but it seems your point is because a foreign national is promising to provide a service (of giving a thing of value?) to Jr., then it's not illegal?
I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar for the record. But your logic doesn't make sense to me. Additionally (as an added bonus) this statute as you interpret it, exonerates the Clinton campaign for using Fusion GPS. Using them wasn't illegal in the first place but by your interpretation, if meeting with the Russians who were supposedly providing a 'service' is innocuous, then so is contracting with that firm (although they're domestic anyway and are under no obligation to reveal their sources).
Edit: regarding my second point, how could the service be provided if the dirt was already dug up and ready to give to the Trump campaign, even if they didn't receive it? The Trump campaign didn't contract for a service to be performed, Jr. was contacted by wikileaks after the hacking/phishing had already occurred. Again, IANAL, but it seems like the dirt is more a 'thing of value' than a 'service'.
1) I am not focused on the foreign nationals, nor should the courts be. They should be focused on why a US citizen (Don Jr) solicited anything of value from a foreign national. We'll leave it to the courts/Mueller to interpret 'thing of value' and 'service' from here since obviously you and I will have no hand in making those determinations.
2) I am not sure how you interpret dirt on hillary as "not a thing of value". There was intelligence that was supposedly going to be provided (thing of value, by my interpretation) but it seems your point is because a foreign national is promising to provide a service (of giving a thing of value?) to Jr., then it's not illegal?
I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar for the record. But your logic doesn't make sense to me. Additionally (as an added bonus) this statute as you interpret it, exonerates the Clinton campaign for using Fusion GPS. Using them wasn't illegal in the first place but by your interpretation, if meeting with the Russians who were supposedly providing a 'service' is innocuous, then so is contracting with that firm (although they're domestic anyway and are under no obligation to reveal their sources).
Edit: regarding my second point, how could the service be provided if the dirt was already dug up and ready to give to the Trump campaign, even if they didn't receive it? The Trump campaign didn't contract for a service to be performed, Jr. was contacted by wikileaks after the hacking/phishing had already occurred. Again, IANAL, but it seems like the dirt is more a 'thing of value' than a 'service'.
This post was edited on 8/6/18 at 11:02 pm
Posted on 8/6/18 at 11:09 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
2) I am not sure how you interpret dirt on hillary as "not a thing of value". There was intelligence that was supposedly going to be provided (thing of value, by my interpretation) but it seems your point is because a foreign national is promising to provide a service (of giving a thing of value?) to Jr., then it's not illegal?
You seem pretty hung up on the “thing of value” definition but then seem eager to forget that there was nothing of any value presented at the meeting. When aforementioned “thing” has no “value” then there is no “thing of value” being exchanged. You have a thing but no value. And really the value is the most important part...and you don’t have it. Womp womp.
Posted on 8/6/18 at 11:09 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:Why would a court get involved?
They should be focused on why a US citizen (Don Jr) solicited anything of value from a foreign national.
As your link says, a campaign is free to use the services of a foreign national, and even pay for those services from campaign funds, and it does not violate the election law section the Gump linked earlier. That's the section that contains the now famous "thing of value" clause that you keep trying to invoke.
"Services" provided by a foreign national, other than the decision making services I quoted above, are specifically noted as "not a thing of value." That's from YOUR link.
If you refuse to accept what's in your own link then I know there's nothing I can post that will influence your opinion.
Posted on 8/6/18 at 11:10 pm to Strannix
quote:
Wow owned by RUSSIAN
Yeah 'owned'
We're having a grown up talk, go back to the kids table.
Posted on 8/6/18 at 11:16 pm to LSURussian
Well if this issue ends up in court, it's going to be a jury and a judge that decide whether the promise of dirt was a thing of value or a service. That is the issue (among others I'm sure) Mueller is weighing with regards to that meeting.
Was it a service or a thing of value? I don't know, but I think it's a thing of value given that the neither Jr. nor the Trump campaign contracted the people involved who supposedly had dirt, to do the service of finding it. In Jr's mind, they already had it.
I accept what's written in the link, I just think we're reading it differently.
Was it a service or a thing of value? I don't know, but I think it's a thing of value given that the neither Jr. nor the Trump campaign contracted the people involved who supposedly had dirt, to do the service of finding it. In Jr's mind, they already had it.
I accept what's written in the link, I just think we're reading it differently.
Posted on 8/6/18 at 11:20 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
Posted by Message
Robin Masters
And you're forgetting the solicitation. Read the rest of this thread, I am not going to repeat this point past this mention. It does not matter if they actually received anything if they solicited a thing of value from a foreign national for use in an election. Full stop. The solicitation is a crime. End of story. It's up to Mueller to even bring this point forward against Jr. He may not! I have no idea. I am saying IMO, (IANAL) that I believe Jr. solicited a thing of value from a foreign national. That is a FECA violation.
Posted on 8/6/18 at 11:21 pm to BamaAtl
It is pretty disturbing someone as dumb as you works for the CDC.
Posted on 8/6/18 at 11:22 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
Well if this issue ends up in court, it's going to be a jury and a judge that decide whether the promise of dirt was a thing of value or a service. That is the issue (among others I'm sure) Mueller is weighing with regards to that meeting.
A promise is a thing of value? To a billionaire real estate tycoon? You are ate up with stupid.
Meanwhile Saudi Arabia gave $25 mill to HRC and you sky screamers want to take our President to court for receiving a promise. I’ve seriously heard it all now. Gawd damn you people are too damn much.
This post was edited on 8/6/18 at 11:23 pm
Posted on 8/6/18 at 11:25 pm to Robin Masters
Here we were having a good discussion and you had to interject with irrelevant information. Again reading past what I said. SOLICITATION.
Go read the rest of this thread and come back with something relevant.
Go read the rest of this thread and come back with something relevant.
Posted on 8/6/18 at 11:27 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
And you're forgetting the solicitation
No, you are fabricating the solicitation.
Posted on 8/6/18 at 11:30 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
No, you are fabricating the solicitation.
"If it is what you say it is, I love it. Especially later in the summer"
Also: LINK
Also 2: Why take the damn meeting then? Jesus you're behind on this.
Try again
This post was edited on 8/6/18 at 11:33 pm
Posted on 8/6/18 at 11:36 pm to atlgamecockman
Do you know what soliciting means? Who approached who? Who sought who out to entice them? That’s sort of big distinction here and the one doing the soliciting is not Don JR.
Posted on 8/6/18 at 11:37 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
if they solicited a thing of value from a foreign national for use in an election. Full stop. The solicitation is a crime.
That's referring to solicting campaign contributions from a foreigner. A campaign can solicit "services" from a foreigner because that's "NOT A THING OF VALUE." (Again, that's from your link.)
Your link specifically states that a "thing of value" includes artwork because artwork is a collectible that has value and can be sold to raise money for the campaign.
quote:
The FEC has distinguished the circumstance where the services of the foreign national are the creation of artwork used by the campaign for fundraising purposes. In this circumstance, the artwork is a contribution or, at least, a thing of value and therefore a prohibited item.
The "thing of value" clause specifically refers to anything that can be considered a financial campaign contribution or used to raise campaign funds.
Your link says exactly that.
And, again, thank you for finding that article and linking it. I've bookmarked it and will use it in the future every time this whole "thing of value" discussion comes up again on this board.
That article is the missing link confirming what I've been saying for months.
Posted on 8/6/18 at 11:38 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Though it still raises the question of why Trump illegally accepted help from Russians, regardless of who 'drove' it ultimately.
Trump team accepts a meeting sought by a Russian, nothing comes of it and nothing is used. You think this is illegal
Hillary / DNC literally pay Russians through Steele to fabricate dirt on trump, use it to obtain a fricking fisa warrant to spy, and you think that’s ok?
This is impressive mental gymnastics, even for you
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News