It Begins: Journalists start admitting Trump-Russia conspiracy was a fabricated lie
- Thread starter artichoke
- Start date
Darth Omar
Russian asset
What if someone uses one or two cut-outs to approach the Russians for campaign dirt or dirt that can be used against a president once he gets into office lol?
Isn’t dirt from Russians—still dirt from Russians, no matter how you spin it?
No. The problem isn't getting dirt from Russians. That can be completely legal. The problem is getting a donation from Russians. That's a key difference.
The distinction is easier to spot of you think of something tangible, instead of information. For example, say you're running a campaign and you rent space for a campaign headquarters in DC. The owner of the building is a Russian oligarch, but you pay fair market value for the rent, and report it as a campaign expense as normal. Have you committed any crime? No. The fact you got that space from a Russian is a red herring in that example, because it's simply a market rent, not a donation. You would expect you are getting the space for the same reason anyone else would get it for the same rent: because the guy is in the business of renting out space.
But what if we change things a bit? Now the Russian oligarch offers to give you use of the space without rent for the duration of the campaign, as part of the Putin government's efforts to help you campaign win. Have you committed a crime? Yes. You've knowingly accepted something of value from a foreigner for the campaign. You would understand you were getting the space as part of a foreigner's effort to influence an American election.
The same holds true for information. If you pay someone a fair value to do opposition research for you, that information is fine, even if it ultimately came from Russian sources -- unless you had some reason to think it was being provided as a donation to the campaign. If, on the other hand, you solicit Russians to donate valuable information for purposes of helping the campaign, that's a crime.
Now, it's conceivable that, say, Steele could have committed a crime. For example, if he got the information by telling Russian nationals that donating that information was a way to help get Clinton elected, he may have crossed the line into soliciting a donation of something of value for a political campaign. But generally work like that is intentionally done anonymously, with regard to the ultimate employer -- neither Steele nor his employer wanted the fact he was working for the campaign to be known. So, there's little practical risk that he dug up that information by way of "campaign donations" of that sort. If, instead, he got the information by paying for it, or taking advantage of gossip or public sources, or calling in favors, etc., that wouldn't be information provided for purposes of a campaign and wouldn't be a problem.
Last edited:
Darth Omar
Russian asset
You’re stuck on information having a value with respect to campaign finance laws, so rather than waste my time on that, I’ll point out another problem with your explanation.
Mullet is on record claiming the Russians intended to sow discord in our country. What better way to do that than by feeding Steele misinformation—with the intent that he passes it onto either to Hillary or our own government officials. It’s easy to get the idea some people are a little selective about when Russians are to be trusted lol.
At any rate, imagine the glee within the Kremlin when they found out that their scheme worked better than they ever hoped it would: not only was a duly elected president being sullied by it, tens of millions of useful idiots questioned the legitimacy of the election itself.
And the Russian glee gets even better: the misinformation, given to Steele, provided the basis for an investigation into ANY possible crime that was committed by DJT within the last decade. Think about it: overturning election results—from the Kremlin!
And THAT is what you call a home run ball, if they wanted to sow discord.
No. You're stuck on arguing that there's some unwritten part of campaign finance laws that popped into secret existence the moment Trump needed it, saying that "thing of value" doesn't include information. As you know, there's no statutory language nor precedent carving out information from the rule. And, as we've discussed, if a court were to invent that exception, to let Trump off the hook, it would open the gate wide to foreigners to influence our elections, since the lion's share of services a campaign needs are information services.
Who is Mullet?
Work to elect a radically unqualified and temperamentally unhinged racist.
Exactly! They probably only had a longshot hope that their compromised politician would win the election. Mostly they were just hoping he'd damage Clinton a lot in the process of the campaign. But then he actually won, and started following Putin's orders, even as he destroyed any sense of community and common purpose within the US. They must have been overjoyed. They know how to use useful idiots like you, but even they didn't realize how easy you were to use.
First, it's unclear how much, if any, of the information Steele gathered was misinformation. Second, the Steele dossier didn't provide the basis for investigating any crimes DJT has committed in that time. There are different bases for investigating different crimes he's committed, and most have had no connection to anything Steele dug up.
Master Fang
Hard and Fast
Makes for a great story though if you gotta have a reason to hate on her.
The only reason to believe that it was her decision is if you gotta have a reason to hate on her.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
You mentioned precendents in your ‘information equals something of value’ argument. Has anyone ever been charged with a campaign finance law violation for simply going to hear what a foreigner has to say?
Also, Mullet would have difficulty proving Junior ‘knowingly and willfully’ set out to commit a crime by simply going to hear what the Russian had to say. It doesn’t matter how excited he was—excitement doesn’t equal willful intent to commit a crime. If I were Junior it never would have entered my head that simply taking the meeting was a crime. [well, it’s not a crime lol]
Now, had I *received* a thumb drive with Hillary’s emails or something physical—that would be a different matter. I would suspect it was stolen and I would have gone straight to the authorities with it. Not saying Junior would have or wouldn’t have but that’s irrelevant because nothing like that happened. Also, my next move after hearing the Russian *would greatly depend on what she said*.
This is always over looked by the impeachment enthusiasts. For all anyone knows [including Mullet] Junior fully intended to go straight to the authorities if Hillary was involved in criminal activity that was discovered by the Russians. Tell me you don’t think they’d waste their time charging Junior with a campaign finance violation *after* having relayed that kind of information to them.
Tell me you don’t think that.
Absent intent, anyone NOT named Trump would simply face a civil charge and a fine. And even granting legitimacy to your facile information=value argument [I don’t] this shows how absolutely desperate the left is in trying to get Trump for something/anything.
Even if it means turning a simple waste-of-time meeting into a criminal act. Or trying to bring down a president over a civil offense violation.
Please stop it, you’re damaging the country and playing right into Putin’s hands.
Regarding your Steele Dossier apologetics: you say it’s ‘unclear how much misinformation is in the Dossier’.
Stop right there. If there’s any misinformation at all—that’s a huge problem; especially, if the Dossier is going to be used as a basis for an investigation into a president[!] or as a justification to spy on innocent Americans or *spy* on presidential campaigns.
When the Dossier first came onto the scene all the anti-Trumpers were gung-ho about it [it was one of the first ‘this is it’ moments lol] and thought it would be the end of Trump.
But as time went on, they backed away from it because the Dossier turned out to be a little sketchy. This whole business is sketchy and warrants another SP appointment.
Last edited:
Since that's not what happened, the hypothetical is pointless. What happened is that Trump Jr. solicited something of value from Russian agents for the campaign -- an act that is illegal under campaign finance law.
Who is Mullet?
Who is Mullet?
If a guy receives stolen goods then drives straight to the police station and hands them over, he's unlikely to get charged with receiving stolen goods. Yet, if he's caught soliciting stolen goods, he's going to be arrested and charged, and he's going to have a hell of a time convincing a jury he had a plan to take them to the police. Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort should be charged, and they can then work to convince a jury that this was just an amateur sting operation gone wrong.
As you can see, I just called for two people not named Trump to be charged.
As you know, this is just one item in a long list of very serious allegations of misconduct for those in the Trump administration. I'm not saying that it should bring down his presidency. But I am saying that the right-wing efforts to treat anyone working for Trump as being above the law need to be rejected. I'm hoping people like you will discover a sense of patriotism before you further damage our country, because right now you're playing the part of Putin's useful idiots to perfection.
Why? Opposition research presumably often includes rumors that wind up not being correct. Was there any such material in Steele's work? Maybe. I don't know. Now, if your issue is that the judges on the FISA court are such rubber stamps that they didn't need to see probable cause for a warrant, even with that being the legal standard, then we have a wider problem, and the FISA court needs to be fixed. But, as you know, neither of us has any reason to believe that's true. We don't know what the FISA court relied on when deciding there was probable cause. Also, the investigation they issued a warrant into wasn't into the president.
I'm an anti-Trumper and know many fellow anti-Trumpers, and I don't recall any of them saying "this is it" or arguing it would be the end of Trump. Who, specifically, are you thinking of?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
‘Maybe this is it, finally’ is a running joke on JPP lol. Maybe you’re new here.
I know some former anti-Trumpers and at least one former virulent anti-Trumper. The Kavanaugh debacle when the left showed their true colors seemed to be a watershed moment.
Did you have a point?
Your sub-set of acquaintances appears to be atypical. As unpopular as Trump was when he became president (only 45% approval, according to Gallup), his popularity has actually declined since then (37% in their last poll). And as much as his approval has fallen (8 points), disapproval has risen even more (12 points). There has never been such a disliked president in history, in terms of average disapproval levels, and there's no sign it's getting better. The current disapproval level is just one percentage point lower than the record high he hit recently.
There we agree. The debacle of the Kavanaugh nomination was a watershed that really allowed the left to show their true colors as the last line of defense against Trump's push for a kakocracy in this country. For someone like me, who came from a very conservative immigrant family, and who got into the conservative (and lucrative) field of finance, there was a lot to drive me away from the left. But things like the Kavanaugh fight really underscored who is working for America and who is a danger to this nation. I may not be a natural fit for the left, but as long as Republicans keep pushing debacles like Kavanaugh on us, a preference for the left is an easy one to have.
That seems to be a common trend among people of my generation. People 18-29 voted Democrat by a margin of 35 points, in the 2018 Congressional elections, which is a mindbogglingly huge margin. Even the giant 19-point margin Clinton got over Trump in 2016 with that demographic looks like a joke compared to what happened after young people really got a look at what the modern left and right stand for.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
You misunderstood very badly. I specifically spoke to due process -- e.g., charging them and letting them argue to a jury that they had a plan to bring the information to the FBI, etc.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I see. Or maybe not, why would anybody expect a free-for-all political forum to follow a scoring guide?
My president would be anyone who didn't consider me to be "the enemy" just because I don't support his ideas.
Whether a free-for-all or formal debate, the score, using the Rubric Template, was low due to responding with "Hitler" instead of refutation with reputable links.
President Trump has been attacked by the left wing media, unmercifully. It's unprecedented. He has a right to consider them to be his enemies, not because they don't support his ideas, but because they can not accept the fact that their candidate lost.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
????......who got a donation?.......
In this case, we're not sure. All we're sure of is that Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort solicited an illegal donation, and that's all we need to know to establish they're guilty of a crime under campaign finance law. It's similar to picking up a prostitute: you don't actually have to have sex with her to be guilty of a crime.
Horse Shit.
The "attacks" (also known as publishing the truth)...may be unprecedented...but that is because the classless, ignorant boor in the White House is acting in an unprecedented way.
The media does not have "a candidate." It reports the news. Some are left-leaning...some are right-leaning...some are quite neutral.
Trump, and his moronic supporters simply cannot accept that much of the media "attacks" Trump the way most of the Republican establishment "attacked" him before he was elected. He was called inappropriate for the job...lacking the political, personal, mental and ethical qualities for the job.
He is "attacked" because people realize he is ignorant, unable or unwilling to learn, incurious, venal, narcissistic, classless...and boorish.
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
yes we are....everyone know who got what......"its all we need to know" but nobody has been indicted for two years.......why aren't you sure?.....
Why am I not sure about what? Your posting style --a string of half-articulated thought fragments joined by ellipses-- can be difficult to follow.