16
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 13, 2019, 06:59:21 PM »UpdSQUIRREL!
Though it is nice to see a right winger embrace the social value of punitive damages.
UpdSQUIRREL!
Yes, though I suspect not in the way you mean it.Don't run away, Needs. How did Trump break this law?
How many times do you need it explained, kiidcarter8? If your argument is that it hasn't been demonstrated that Trump personally broke the law, fine, though immaterial as the discussion is regarding his statement just yesterday that he, personally, would.
And not just the campaign finance law but, like I said, the law requiring government officials with a security clearance to disclose the occurrence and nature of contacts with foreign powers.
"Well. the FBI director is wrong"
- Trump
Pretty self explanatory.
Opposition research is not illegal, even if it makes use of a foreign source. It is not a contribution or donation to a campaign. What happened at Trump Tower, and what Trump said he would do yesterday, is not opposition research. Those would be direct offers to make direct contributions of a thing of value by foreign nationals.More charitably, Mueller felt the facts would not show knowledge clearly enough to obtain a criminal conviction under the enforcement provisions of the campaign finance law, specifically 52 USC 30109(d)(1)(A)(i), which requires knowing and wilfully conduct. There were also issues regarding the monetary value of the information as it related to the $2500 floor for.a.criminal violation, or.the 25000 for the felony. See pages 185 -188 of Mueller's report.I gave you the complete cite. Down to the subsection. If you are to lazy to Google it for yourself, maybe try posting about things you know about. If there is anything.
Also, erm, didn't Steve just post the exact law that Kid was challenging him to specify?? And Adjustman also posted another one.
erm?
No, he didnt. And he didnt link to it. Should be easy. GOOGLE.
And for the record re: the Russia Meeting Mueller only didn't charge Don Jr. and Kushner because he figured they were just too stupid to know they were breaking the law.
My take is that the discussion of the value of the oppo research was more in service of the decision to not charge based on knowledge. Mueller establishes that oppo research is of some value. The level of the charge could have been guessed at (easily, based on what is typically paid by campaigns for oppo research) and indictments get negotiated down after being issued all the time.
No, I am reading and applying it, using Mueller's excellent analysis as a support for my own reading. You are excusing the president's statements and conduct despite the law because you are little more than a giant foam rubber finger on all things Trump.I gave you the complete cite. Down to the subsection. If you are to lazy to Google it for yourself, maybe try posting about things you know about. If there is anything.
Also, erm, didn't Steve just post the exact law that Kid was challenging him to specify?? And Adjustman also posted another one.
erm?
No, he didnt. And he didnt link to it. Should be easy. GOOGLE.
You are taking liberties with the wording of the law, in re: Trump's actions.
Tell me how I am wrong and how he broke this law, in your eyes.Trump statement yesterday indicated he would break the law if given the opportunity. As to whether he has already broken it, I believe his conduct around the Trump Tower meeting indicates he knew of the meeting and its purpose and violated the campaign finance law. Whether it met the criminal standard is another question.
More charitably, Mueller felt the facts would not show knowledge clearly enough to obtain a criminal conviction under the enforcement provisions of the campaign finance law, specifically 52 USC 30109(d)(1)(A)(i), which requires knowing and wilfully conduct. There were also issues regarding the monetary value of the information as it related to the $2500 floor for.a.criminal violation, or.the 25000 for the felony. See pages 185 -188 of Mueller's report.I gave you the complete cite. Down to the subsection. If you are to lazy to Google it for yourself, maybe try posting about things you know about. If there is anything.
Also, erm, didn't Steve just post the exact law that Kid was challenging him to specify?? And Adjustman also posted another one.
erm?
No, he didnt. And he didnt link to it. Should be easy. GOOGLE.
And for the record re: the Russia Meeting Mueller only didn't charge Don Jr. and Kushner because he figured they were just too stupid to know they were breaking the law.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/may/26/rocketman-review-right-spectacle-elton-johnAlmost Famous.
Good biopic/musical. And the second movie I've seen that uses "Tiny Dancer" to good effect. (gold star, if you can guess the other one) As well as deftly weaving in other selections from the John/Taupin playlist, perfectly capturing the mood.
Or his mother wont lose her job and be forced to relocate back to Cali to live with family again. Row serf! Row!like the changing seasons themselves.... you say how recruiting looks and I say it ain't over til the final signing day. Though I think that definitely is starting to change
#1 we saw less movement last year between the first signing day and the last than we had the prior two years.
#2 there is now movement after the final signing day. Reference the fact we just got two highly ranked recruits back in the last two weeks.
Right, you got the kid from Florida that couldn't seem to make up his mind in the first place, decided for USC, then changed it to Florida, went to Florida, changed it to Oregon, then changed it to USC. Hopefully nobody sneezes the kid's way or he'll change it again. ;-)
I gave you the complete cite. Down to the subsection. If you are to lazy to Google it for yourself, maybe try posting about things you know about. If there is anything.
Also, erm, didn't Steve just post the exact law that Kid was challenging him to specify?? And Adjustman also posted another one.
erm?
No, he didnt. And he didnt link to it. Should be easy. GOOGLE.
So the White House does not understand how the 1st Amendment interacts with government employment, or simply has chosen to ignore the Hatch Act. No surprise. It is a lawless Administration.Wonder how far this will get.
Kellyanne Conway Should Be Removed From Federal Office, Ethics Agency Says
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kellyanne-conway-hatch-act-removed-federal-service_n_5d027337e4b0dc17ef05e5d7
https://twitter.com/desiderioDC/status/1139202861018075137
Cf. Reply #15104. I knew precisely what law I was refering to, asshat. That you don't know or understand it is not my fault.The law against knowingly accepting something of value from foreign sources in a federal election campaign.So after 2 years of investigating Russian interference in our elections, Trump says he's ok with breaking the law and doing it again in 2020.
And the fucking Republicans are fucking silent.
They should be ashamed of their cowardice as they barter away our democracy.
What law is that?
Let's see it.
Or you can describe what you feel it means.
Oh, fuck. Google.
Heh. That's funny. Google.
You and Steve do not know which law he is referring to, nor can you explain exactly how it was violated. You are flying fucking BLIND! But acting like someone with 20/10.
52 USC 30121(a)(2).The law against knowingly accepting something of value from foreign sources in a federal election campaign.So after 2 years of investigating Russian interference in our elections, Trump says he's ok with breaking the law and doing it again in 2020.
And the fucking Republicans are fucking silent.
They should be ashamed of their cowardice as they barter away our democracy.
What law is that?
Let's see it.
Or you can describe what you feel it means.
The law against knowingly accepting something of value from foreign sources in a federal election campaign.So after 2 years of investigating Russian interference in our elections, Trump says he's ok with breaking the law and doing it again in 2020.
And the fucking Republicans are fucking silent.
They should be ashamed of their cowardice as they barter away our democracy.
What law is that?
You seem to have problems with the phrase "akin to". You may want to look that up.The "insult" was pointing out that the New York senator did not call pro-lifers racist and that you read it incorrectly. Behave as expected.LOL.
She most certainly did.
But it is easier for you to deny she meant it instead of admitting they are not.