Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[whiskeypriest]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[kiidcarter8]

Don't run away, Needs.  How did Trump break this law?

[facilitatorn]

Don't run away, Needs.  How did Trump break this law?

He solicited and accepted contributions from a foreign military to help him attack and defeat the American electoral process.

“Russia, if you’re listening” is a far cry from, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall”.

It’s part of the contagious degenerative condition endemic to the GOP.

[facilitatorn]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/every-member-of-team-trump-is-now-enabling-treason?ref=home

For those who can process ideas of more than 280 characters

[NeedsAdjustments]

Graham added that he is willing to look at legislation to more clearly define what is illegal, and that "you accept assistance from a foreign government at your own peril."



yep

This is a toady softening his criticism.  You don't pass additional legislation to explain already passed legislation to the idiots who can't understand it.

[NeedsAdjustments]

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.

[NeedsAdjustments]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[facilitatorn]

Kid doesn’t see this as any worse than the pussy grabbing or the fraud schemes.

It is all part of feeling his values are being embraced by those in power.

[whiskeypriest]

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.

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.

You are taking liberties with the wording of the law, in re:  Trump's actions.

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.

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.

[whiskeypriest]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[kiidcarter8]

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.

[whiskeypriest]

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.

Yes, though I suspect not in the way you mean it.

[kiidcarter8]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Are you saying "of value" (wording of the law) means of value to a campaign?

[NeedsAdjustments]

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.

I'm not sure where the disagreement is.  Opposition research that originates in the US and is paid for by the campaign but uses foreign sources for the info it gathers (like the Steele Dossier) is not illegal.  The "Dirt" on Clinton offered in the Trump Tower episode, or the "information on your opponent" which Trump described yesterday is essentially opposition research, but it is an item of value offered by and originating from a foreign source and would therefore be illegal.

Where do I have that wrong?

[NeedsAdjustments]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Are you saying "of value" (wording of the law) means of value to a campaign?

Value means something that a campaign would otherwise pay for.  Foreign sources are prohibited by campaign finance law from providing that value because they would want something in return and you don't want politicians beholden to foreign powers.

Per Mueller:

These authorities would support the view that candidate-related opposition research given to a campaign for the purpose of influencing an election could constitute a contribution to which the foreign-source ban could apply.

...Political campaigns frequently conduct and pay for opposition research. A foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money or tangible things of value.