Is it insane that the FEC chair needs to inform politicians (read the president) about the law?

Peter King · Jun 13, 2019

And with the law of course I mean the law that makes it illegal for a US politician to (and I quote from the head of the FEC):

“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”

Is it insane that the FEC Chair needs to inform, especially after the words of the president, that it is illegal/against the law to get dirt from a foreign national/government.

joko104 · Jun 13, 2019

Peter King said:
And with the law of course I mean the law that makes it illegal for a US politician to (and I quote from the head of the FEC):

“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”

Is it insane that the FEC Chair needs to inform, especially after the words of the president, that it is illegal/against the law to get dirt from a foreign national/government.

That is not what he said. He said anything "of value." In law this has never mean facts or truth. It means something tangible, not thoughts. Money, gifts, political printed materials...

To interpret it as meaning thoughts and facts is absurd. Your ludicrous opinion is that any politician that reads a foreign newspaper or reading anything online that is "dirt" written by a foreign national - or hears anything that is "dirt" about a candidate, committed a crime. If a candidate listens to any British or any other foreign commentator on the MSM who talks about "dirt" on your opponent, they by hearing that the politician committed a federal crime - in YOUR ridiculous analysis.

joko104 · Jun 13, 2019

Voted Other. The comment by the OPer is false and ludicrous.

Hilary Clinton paid for the Steele dossier with "dirt" on Trump. Steele is British. Does the OPer care, claim she committed a crime, her in the poll? No.

This thread is more fake outrage by a Democrat based upon an outright false claim. Nothing new about that. Create a lie and rage based upon the lie the Democrat created.

Peter King · Jun 13, 2019

joko104 said:
That is not what he said. He said anything "of value." In law this has never mean facts or truth. It means something tangible, not thoughts. Money, gifts, political printed materials...

To interpret it as meaning thoughts and facts is absurd. Your ludicrous opinion is that any politician that reads a foreign newspaper or reading anything online that is "dirt" written by a foreign national - or hears anything that is "dirt" about a candidate, committed a crime. If a candidate listens to any British or any other foreign commentator on the MSM who talks about "dirt" on your opponent, they by hearing that the politician committed a federal crime - in YOUR ridiculous analysis.

Of value is also information/dirt on your opponent. In fact other than money and troll help that is about the most valuable thing you can get in an election.

Parrish · Jun 13, 2019

joko104 said:
Voted Other. The comment by the OPer is false and ludicrous.

Hilary Clinton paid for the Steele dossier with "dirt" on Trump. Steele is British. Does the OPer care, claim she committed a crime, her in the poll? No.

This thread is more fake outrage by a Democrat based upon an outright false claim. Nothing new about that. Create a lie and rage based upon the lie the Democrat created.

:lamo

Parrish · Jun 13, 2019

joko104 said:
That is not what he said. He said anything "of value." In law this has never mean facts or truth. It means something tangible, not thoughts. Money, gifts, political printed materials...

To interpret it as meaning thoughts and facts is absurd. Your ludicrous opinion is that any politician that reads a foreign newspaper or reading anything online that is "dirt" written by a foreign national - or hears anything that is "dirt" about a candidate, committed a crime. If a candidate listens to any British or any other foreign commentator on the MSM who talks about "dirt" on your opponent, they by hearing that the politician committed a federal crime - in YOUR ridiculous analysis.

:lamo

ocean515 · Jun 13, 2019

Peter King said:
And with the law of course I mean the law that makes it illegal for a US politician to (and I quote from the head of the FEC):

“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”

Is it insane that the FEC Chair needs to inform, especially after the words of the president, that it is illegal/against the law to get dirt from a foreign national/government.

LOL

You can't even present the fake narrative right....

Why don't you learn something about the law being referenced? Has nothing to do with "dirt".

Grand Mal · Jun 13, 2019

joko104 said:
Voted Other. The comment by the OPer is false and ludicrous.

Hilary Clinton paid for the Steele dossier with "dirt" on Trump. Steele is British. Does the OPer care, claim she committed a crime, her in the poll? No.

This thread is more fake outrage by a Democrat based upon an outright false claim. Nothing new about that. Create a lie and rage based upon the lie the Democrat created.

Steele is British but he's not Britain. The dossier he worked on was contracted to Fusion GPS by the ultra-conservative website Washingon Free Beacon and by the time it landed in Steele's lap he didn't know who the customer was. All of this is enormously different from accepting information from a foreign government. You know this but you choose to ignore it. That makes you nearly traitorous. I say nearly simply because agreeing with a traitorous President puts you in a grey area.

You okay with the Chinese intelligence agency focusing on digging up dirt on Trump and feeding it to Sanders or Biden or whoever? You okay with that?

Lutherf · Jun 13, 2019

Peter King said:
Of value is also information/dirt on your opponent. In fact other than money and troll help that is about the most valuable thing you can get in an election.

Not that Trump had anything to do with them but what was the value of the Podesta emails? Who benefited from their release and how would you go about measuring that benefit?

JasperL · Jun 13, 2019

Grand Mal said:
Steele is British but he's not Britain. The dossier he worked on was contracted to Fusion GPS by the ultra-conservative website Washingon Free Beacon and by the time it landed in Steele's lap he didn't know who the customer was. All of this is enormously different from accepting information from a foreign government. You know this but you choose to ignore it. That makes you nearly traitorous. I say nearly simply because agreeing with a traitorous President puts you in a grey area.

You okay with the Chinese intelligence agency focusing on digging up dirt on Trump and feeding it to Sanders or Biden or whoever? You okay with that?

It's really breathtaking that your question is being answered "HELL YES!!!" by Trump and all his cultist followers right now. That IS the new GOP position on foreign interference in our elections - bring it on! If you'd have predicted this 5 years ago, that the GOP would be cheering on foreign intelligence agencies digging into candidates and feeding that info to other candidates, you'd have been branded a CT spewing moron, but that is where we are. It's like bad dream.

JasperL · Jun 13, 2019

Lutherf said:
Not that Trump had anything to do with them but what was the value of the Podesta emails? Who benefited from their release and how would you go about measuring that benefit?

Trump benefitted and why does it matter how you'd measure the benefit?

The question is whether working with or accepting intelligence gathered by a foreign government is acceptable. The dollar value has nothing to do with that question or answer. I've read the North Koreans have some of the best hackers in the business. Are we really saying as a country we should effectively invite them into our elections, at every level, and let them play a large (or small) part in who we elect?

Grand Mal · Jun 13, 2019

JasperL said:
It's really breathtaking that your question is being answered "HELL YES!!!" by Trump and all his cultist followers right now. That IS the new GOP position on foreign interference in our elections - bring it on! If you'd have predicted this 5 years ago, that the GOP would be cheering on foreign intelligence agencies digging into candidates and feeding that info to other candidates, you'd have been branded a CT spewing moron, but that is where we are. It's like bad dream.

It's a bizarre scenario. It, the premise that it's okay for a foreign country to interfere in an American election process, has been supposedly worked out but apparently not. Apparently the right kind of interference wold be welcomed by the President.
It's going to be hard to come back from this.

bomberfox · Jun 13, 2019

joko104 said:
That is not what he said. He said anything "of value." In law this has never mean facts or truth. It means something tangible, not thoughts. Money, gifts, political printed materials...

To interpret it as meaning thoughts and facts is absurd. Your ludicrous opinion is that any politician that reads a foreign newspaper or reading anything online that is "dirt" written by a foreign national - or hears anything that is "dirt" about a candidate, committed a crime. If a candidate listens to any British or any other foreign commentator on the MSM who talks about "dirt" on your opponent, they by hearing that the politician committed a federal crime - in YOUR ridiculous analysis.

:lamo

iguanaman · Jun 13, 2019

joko104 said:
Voted Other. The comment by the OPer is false and ludicrous.

Hilary Clinton paid for the Steele dossier with "dirt" on Trump. Steele is British. Does the OPer care, claim she committed a crime, her in the poll? No.

This thread is more fake outrage by a Democrat based upon an outright false claim. Nothing new about that. Create a lie and rage based upon the lie the Democrat created.

Stop this stupid meme, It's foreign GOVERNMENT assistance that is illegal under U.S. law. Notice the "g" word in all caps. Nothing Hillary did was from any foreign Govt. Hiring someone who was an expert in Russian counter-intelligence was not illegal and was actually quite successful in revealing the relationship with Putin and Trump. Here's just a few of the allegations in the dossier that have been verified as fact and that we first learned from Steele's work.

Contacts between Trump's team and Russians
The dossier contains allegations against several of Trump's campaign officials and associates of having secret contacts with Russians during the campaign. Steele's raw intelligence reports cited unnamed sources alleging these communications were part of a widespread effort to collude on the election and secure the White House for Trump.
When the memos spilled into public view, Trump and at least five other senior administration officials denied in emphatic and often sweeping terms that anyone involved in the campaign was in contact with Russians. But in the two years since those denials were issued, news reports and court filings revealed that at least 16 Trump associates had contacts with Russians during the campaign or transition.

Russian meddling in the 2016 election
While Trump and his supporters have seized on the most salacious, uncorroborated claims to discredit the dossier as a "pile of garbage," much of Steele's memos focused on Russia's role interfering in the 2016 election. Steele's intelligence memos detail a pattern and preference for Trump that have since been confirmed by the US intelligence community and indictments against Russians brought by Mueller's investigation.

Trump's real estate dealings in Russia
The dossier claimed that the Russians tried to influence Trump by offering him "sweetener" real estate deals, in hopes of drawing him closer to Moscow. The specific details about these purported deals haven't been corroborated, but the dossier said Trump declined these offers.
Throughout the campaign, Trump said he had "nothing to do with Russia." When the dossier was first published, there wasn't any indication that Trump's company was involved in Russia beyond the Miss Universe pageant that he hosted in Moscow in 2013.
But it recently became public knowledge that Trump pursued a lucrative project in Moscow deep into the 2016 campaign, and that his then-attorney Michael Cohen sought help from the Kremlin to move the project along. Cohen admitted these shocking details when he pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow proposal, which never came to fruition.

Revisiting the Trump-Russia dossier: What's right, wrong and still unclear? - CNNPolitics

Utility Man · Jun 13, 2019

:elephantf:usflag2:

They would rather be Russian than Democrat.

Logician Man · Jun 14, 2019

joko104 said:
That is not what he said. He said anything "of value." In law this has never mean facts or truth. It means something tangible, not thoughts. Money, gifts, political printed materials...

To interpret it as meaning thoughts and facts is absurd. Your ludicrous opinion is that any politician that reads a foreign newspaper or reading anything online that is "dirt" written by a foreign national - or hears anything that is "dirt" about a candidate, committed a crime. If a candidate listens to any British or any other foreign commentator on the MSM who talks about "dirt" on your opponent, they by hearing that the politician committed a federal crime - in YOUR ridiculous analysis.

:lamo :laughat:

Logician Man · Jun 14, 2019

joko104 said:
Voted Other. The comment by the OPer is false and ludicrous.

Hilary Clinton paid for the Steele dossier with "dirt" on Trump. Steele is British. Does the OPer care, claim she committed a crime, her in the poll? No.

This thread is more fake outrage by a Democrat based upon an outright false claim. Nothing new about that. Create a lie and rage based upon the lie the Democrat created.

:lamo :laughat:

Simon W. Moon · Jun 14, 2019

joko104 said:
That is not what he said. He said anything "of value." In law this has never mean facts or truth. It means something tangible, not thoughts. Money, gifts, political printed materials...
To interpret it as meaning thoughts and facts is absurd. Your ludicrous opinion is that any politician that reads a foreign newspaper or reading anything online that is "dirt" written by a foreign national - or hears anything that is "dirt" about a candidate, committed a crime. If a candidate listens to any British or any other foreign commentator on the MSM who talks about "dirt" on your opponent, they by hearing that the politician committed a federal crime - in YOUR ridiculous analysis.

Your argument is that "thoughts and facts" can never be something "of value"?

It seems that humans often exchange money and other things of values for "thoughts and facts".
These common exchanges would indicate that "thoughts and facts" can be "of value".
Otherwise, why would humans exchange money and other things of value for "thoughts and facts"?

Is your opinion that "thoughts and facts" can never be of value a widely held belief, or a belief specific to you?

Do you feel cheated when you pay your physician or attorney for their opinions, thoughts and facts?

apdst · Jun 14, 2019

Peter King said:
And with the law of course I mean the law that makes it illegal for a US politician to (and I quote from the head of the FEC):

“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”

Is it insane that the FEC Chair needs to inform, especially after the words of the president, that it is illegal/against the law to get dirt from a foreign national/government.

Receiving information isn't considered a campaign donation.

What if...? · Jun 14, 2019

joko104 said:
That is not what he said. He said anything "of value." In law this has never mean facts or truth. It means something tangible, not thoughts. Money, gifts, political printed materials...

To interpret it as meaning thoughts and facts is absurd. Your ludicrous opinion is that any politician that reads a foreign newspaper or reading anything online that is "dirt" written by a foreign national - or hears anything that is "dirt" about a candidate, committed a crime. If a candidate listens to any British or any other foreign commentator on the MSM who talks about "dirt" on your opponent, they by hearing that the politician committed a federal crime - in YOUR ridiculous analysis.

So what you're saying is opposition research is free?

Because last I heard it costs money.

So if the law doesn't consider it a thing of value then that's because of who uses opposition research and not any "reasonable man" understanding of "of value" .

apdst · Jun 14, 2019

Peter King said:
Of value is also information/dirt on your opponent. In fact other than money and troll help that is about the most valuable thing you can get in an election.

Show us the dollar value the FEC places on "information/dirt".

apdst · Jun 14, 2019

JasperL said:
Trump benefitted and why does it matter how you'd measure the benefit?

The question is whether working with or accepting intelligence gathered by a foreign government is acceptable. The dollar value has nothing to do with that question or answer. I've read the North Koreans have some of the best hackers in the business. Are we really saying as a country we should effectively invite them into our elections, at every level, and let them play a large (or small) part in who we elect?

You have to measure the benefit, because United States citizens can only donate $2,500 per person to a campaign. If a citizen donates information to a campaign that's worth $50,000, that's an FEC violation.

AlbqOwl · Jun 14, 2019

Peter King said:
And with the law of course I mean the law that makes it illegal for a US politician to (and I quote from the head of the FEC):

“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”

Is it insane that the FEC Chair needs to inform, especially after the words of the president, that it is illegal/against the law to get dirt from a foreign national/government.

The law says 'anything of value.' Almost all of the media and all congresspersons, everybody in government would listen to what a foreign person had to say. Most have done so. And if there was, as the President said, something 'bad' in that, the responsible person would turn that information over to the appropriate authorities. How would you know if it was 'bad' unless you knew what it was?

Good gosh, the hatred for our President is all that is anybody's head anymore. The most innocuous statement is continuously blown all out of proportion and made into something it is not.

j brown's body · Jun 14, 2019

AlbqOwl said:
The law says 'anything of value.' Almost all of the media and all congresspersons, everybody in government would listen to what a foreign person had to say. Most have done so. And if there was, as the President said, something 'bad' in that, the responsible person would turn that information over to the appropriate authorities. How would you know if it was 'bad' unless you knew what it was?

Good gosh, the hatred for our President is all that is anybody's head anymore. The most innocuous statement is continuously blown all out of proportion and made into something it is not.

So you're okay with him accepting assistance in an election from a foreign adversary, one he is trying to do business with, no less?

Peter King · Jun 14, 2019

apdst said:
Show us the dollar value the FEC places on "information/dirt".

Sure, because the law/the FEC says we have to put a dollar price on that.

Is it insane that the FEC chair needs to inform politicians (read the president) about the law?

Is it insane that the FEC chair needs to warn politicians to not break the law

Yes, it is crazy that it is needed.

No, no politician needs to know stuff like this

I support Trump, what the law says means nothing to me/Trump

I am a democrat, I think Trump already broke the law in 2016

I am an independent, I think Trump already broke this law in 2016

I don't know/don't care what the law or the FEC says

Other, please explain.................

Russian warship, go f*** yourself!

Russian warship, go f*** yourself!

Sidewalk Inspector

Zenyatta

Zenyatta

"A Soros-backed animal"