• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mueller sees Russian effort to influence 2018 midterms

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/12/mueller-russia-midterms-influence-641851

Prosecutors are trying to block intelligence agencies and absent defendants from seeing evidence in the investigation of interference in the 2016 election.

Russian intelligence agencies are trying to meddle in the 2018 U.S. midterm elections much as they did two years ago, special counsel Robert Mueller’s office asserted on Tuesday in a court filing.

The claim of active election-focused intelligence operations came as prosecutors moved to block more than a dozen Russians who are charged criminally in the prior effort from gaining access to evidence gathered as that case was assembled.
====================================
Releasing this evidence would compromise the investigation & reveal sources & methods to the Russian intelligence services.

There are others that have appeared n CBS News saying the same thing; in fact there was a story on 60 minutes last Sunday as I recall that got into that a bit. They are going to keep going with this and FaceBoy over in Mountain View is still facilitating it. His people were actually going to work in the Trump campaign headquarters as FaceBook employees, teaching those people how to run those adds. THAT was certainly on last Sunday night.
 
That wasn't a crime.

Why Trump Jr. may have broken the law
The statute in question is 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510 — the law governing foreign contributions to US campaigns. There are two key passages that apply here. This is the first:

A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

The crucial phrase here is “other thing of value,” legal experts tell me. It means that the law extends beyond just cash donations. Foreigners are also banned from providing other kinds of contributions that would be the functional equivalent of a campaign donation, just provided in the form of services rather than goods. Like, say, damaging information the Russian government collected about Hillary Clinton.

“To the extent you’re using the resources of a foreign country to run your campaign — that’s an illegal campaign contribution,” Nick Akerman, an assistant special prosecutor during the Watergate investigation who now specializes in data crime, says.

Here’s the second important passage of the statute: “No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by [this law].”

The key word from Trump Jr., according to University of California Irvine election law expert Rick Hasen, is “solicit,” which has a very specific meaning in this context. To quote the relevant statute:

A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.

Trump Jr. was clearly soliciting information that he knew was coming from a foreign source. Given that political campaigns regularly pay thousands of dollars to opposition researchers to dig up dirt, it seems like damaging information on Clinton would constitute something “of value” to the Trump campaign.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal
 
I don't see where any one has been doing any election meddling, nor any convictions.
/

Don't be in such a rush. All things come to those who stand & wait.
 
I voted Republican........................because of the Russians. :lamo

And yet the opposite position is the dumbest argument in the world...that marketing/propoganda doesn't work. We have billions of dollars a year spent on it, but American gonna claim it don't work! Derp.

Also, you didn't know it was Russians. Most people in general don't know the source of marketing, the agenda, and worse, most don't even care. And based on current Trump voter nuttery, most voters don't care about Russia's attack on the U.S., or Trump's love of Russia and NK, while he attacks our allies. They love it, slurping it up with a straw.

That's the problem with the party of Trump. The arguments are too stupid from every angle, for you to expect to debate with any kind of sense or honesty.
 
So now information is supposed to be a contribution or donation... which means that every campaign that does opposition research now has to figure the value of that research so they don’t go beyond campaign contribution limits. That should be fun.
 
Mueller sees Russian effort to influence 2018 midterms

Why wouldn't they? In an election that was won by the smallest margin ever, Russian influence may very well have swung the election. And it cost them very little.

I think they'll do it again just to see if they can, huge rewards … almost no risk.
 
That is just so silly and so wrong, I don't know where to begin.

I suggest you look up federal conspiracy statutes.

If I call you and say "hey, I have some cocaine for you from the Russian government".. and you say "if that's what you say I love it, then go to a meeting to get that cocaine, you're going to prison. Even if there was no actual cocaine anywhere.

Intent to break the law and at least one overt act..
 
Don't be in such a rush. All things come to those who stand & wait.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...-indicted-russians-actually-show-courtMueller Scrambles To Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court "Politico's Gerstein notes that by defending against the charges, “Concord could force prosecutors to turn over discovery about how the case was assembled as well as evidence that might undermine the prosecution’s theories.”In a mad scramble to put the brakes on the case, Mueller's team tried to delay the trial - saying that Concord never formally accepted the court summons related to the case, wrapping themselves in a "cloud of confusion" as Powerline puts it. “Until the Court has an opportunity to determine if Concord was properly served, it would be inadvisable to conduct an initial appearance and arraignment at which important rights will be communicated and a plea entertained.”The Judge, Dabney Friedrich - a Trump appointee, didn't buy it - denying Mueller a delay in the high-profile trial.The Russians hit back - filing a response to let the court know that “[Concord] voluntarily appeared through counsel as provided for in [the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure], and further intends to enter a plea of not guilty. [Concord] has not sought a limited appearance nor has it moved to quash the summons. As such, the briefing sought by the Special Counsel’s motion is pettifoggery.”And the Judge agreed... A federal judge has rejected special counsel Robert Mueller’s request to delay the first court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.In a brief order Saturday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich offered no explanation for her decision to deny a request prosecutors made Friday to put off the scheduled Wednesday arraignment for Concord Management and Consulting, one of the three firms charged in the case. -Politico In other words, Mueller was denied the opportunity to kick the can down the road, forcing him to produce the requested evidence or withdraw the indictment, potentially jeopardizing the PR aspect of the entire "Trump collusion" probe. And now Mueller is pointing to Russian "interference operations" in a last-ditch effort. Of note, Facebook VP of advertising, Rob Goldman, tossed a major hand grenade in the "pro-Trump" Russian meddling narrative in February when he fired off a series of tweets the day of the Russian indictments. Most notably, Goldman pointed out that the majority of advertising purchased by Russians on Facebook occurred after the election, were hardly pro-Trump, and they was designed to "sow discord and divide Americans", something which Americans have been quite adept at doing on their own ever since the Fed decided to unleash a record class, wealth, income divide by keeping capital markets artificially afloat at any cost. The main goal of the Russian propaganda and misinformation effort is to divide America by using our institutions, like free speech and social media, against us. It has stoked fear and hatred amongst Americans. It is working incredibly well. We are quite divided as a nation."....
 
So now information is supposed to be a contribution or donation... which means that every campaign that does opposition research now has to figure the value of that research so they don’t go beyond campaign contribution limits. That should be fun.



Wake up! It is 2018, information is currency!
 
Why Trump Jr. may have broken the law
The statute in question is 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510 — the law governing foreign contributions to US campaigns. There are two key passages that apply here. This is the first:

A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

The crucial phrase here is “other thing of value,” legal experts tell me. It means that the law extends beyond just cash donations. Foreigners are also banned from providing other kinds of contributions that would be the functional equivalent of a campaign donation, just provided in the form of services rather than goods. Like, say, damaging information the Russian government collected about Hillary Clinton.

“To the extent you’re using the resources of a foreign country to run your campaign — that’s an illegal campaign contribution,” Nick Akerman, an assistant special prosecutor during the Watergate investigation who now specializes in data crime, says.

Here’s the second important passage of the statute: “No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by [this law].”

The key word from Trump Jr., according to University of California Irvine election law expert Rick Hasen, is “solicit,” which has a very specific meaning in this context. To quote the relevant statute:

A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.

Trump Jr. was clearly soliciting information that he knew was coming from a foreign source. Given that political campaigns regularly pay thousands of dollars to opposition researchers to dig up dirt, it seems like damaging information on Clinton would constitute something “of value” to the Trump campaign.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal

You're right in the soliciting, but wrong in who solicited.

Not to mention Kushner, who was in attendance, recieved his security clearances, it's highly unlikely if an investigation was ongoing or indictments to be served that that would have happened.
 
You're right in the soliciting, but wrong in who solicited.
Hold on..."I" am wrong, or "the legal experts in the article" are wrong in identifying Jr as the solicitor?
 
I suggest you look up federal conspiracy statutes.

If I call you and say "hey, I have some cocaine for you from the Russian government".. and you say "if that's what you say I love it, then go to a meeting to get that cocaine, you're going to prison. Even if there was no actual cocaine anywhere.

Intent to break the law and at least one overt act..

No, bad analogy, cocaine is illegal, information may or may not be illegal. And in this case there was no "thing of value", information, accepted or recieved.
 
No, bad analogy, cocaine is illegal, information may or may not be illegal. And in this case there was no "thing of value", information, accepted or recieved.
Wrong, the soliciting for the info from a foreign state IS illegal because it, the info, does have value.
 
Hold on..."I" am wrong, or "the legal experts in the article" are wrong in identifying Jr as the solicitor?

The lawyer is wrong in who solicited, even the link (vox) is wrong. From the link;

*In other words, the mere fact that Trump Jr. asked for information from a Russian national about Clinton might have constituted a federal crime.*

Trump didn't solicit the "thing of value", the Russian lawyer did.
 
No, bad analogy, cocaine is illegal, information may or may not be illegal. And in this case there was no "thing of value", information, accepted or recieved.

That's the thing. There doesn't have to be any actual cocaine involved. Just intent, and at least one overt act.

There is clear intent to get something, Jr would "love it", even.

And he went to the meeting to get it.

If what he was offered was illegal and he said he wanted it and went to get it it doesn't matter to the feds. Its conspiracy.
 
The lawyer is wrong in who solicited, even the link (vox) is wrong. From the link;

*In other words, the mere fact that Trump Jr. asked for information from a Russian national about Clinton might have constituted a federal crime.*

Trump didn't solicit the "thing of value", the Russian lawyer did.
You do not understand how solicit is defined,

A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.



so·lic·it
səˈlisit/Submit
verb
ask for or try to obtain (something) from someone.
 
Last edited:
That's the thing. There doesn't have to be any actual cocaine involved. Just intent, and at least one overt act.

There is clear intent to get something, Jr would "love it", even.

And he went to the meeting to get it.

If what he was offered was illegal and he said he wanted it and went to get it it doesn't matter to the feds. Its conspiracy.

No, that's not the thing, information may or may not be illegal.

The DNC/Clinton Campaign recieved information, indirectly from foreign nationals, why was that information legal ??
 
No, that's not the thing, information may or may not be illegal.

The DNC/Clinton Campaign recieved information, indirectly from foreign nationals, why was that information legal ??
Because GPS is a US company. Cmon, man.
 
You do not understand how solicit is defined,

A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.



so·lic·it
səˈlisit/Submit
verb
ask for or try to obtain (something) from someone.

The Trump Campaign didn't contact, ask or request anything from the Russian lawyer, SHE contacted them.
 
The Trump Campaign didn't contact, ask or request anything from the Russian lawyer, SHE contacted them.
Whatever guy, you have gone from denial about who solicited, to denying how it is defined and then back to denial about who. good luck with that.
 
You can just skip to the next posts there, you are not understanding how solicit is defined.

You've already posted the definition, again the Russian lawyer solicited not the Trump Campaign.
 
You've already posted the definition, again the Russian lawyer solicited not the Trump Campaign.
I got it, and yer posting is so incredibly slow. I said fine, whatever. GL with it.
 
Because GPS is a US company. Cmon, man.

Maybe you should look up the definition of "indirectly". Be that as it may, does this "foreign nationals" information become legal by passing through a US company ?? or some other reason ??
 
Back
Top Bottom