Just so we keep the Russia Story on the Front Burner... until the real culprits are cooked!


#21

Let Mueller do his work. NYT apparently had something like this developing for a whole year so they may be further along than we think. In addition the special prosecutor team is comprised only of legal prosecutors and no investigators, meaning that proverbially the FBI and DOJ may have already had the ball on the 1 yard line and are waiting for Mueller to run it in.


#22

Lets take it down to this basic level… tell me precisely what ‘other thing of value’ was given to Don Jr?


#23

Scholars have come out to say that Donald Trump Jr. has not broke the law due to the fact that the meeting never took place, there is also an issue with that. He (on the sub-reddit) cherrypicked the campaign finance law a lot, goods and services when applied here isn’t up to interpretation and is entirely to mean aid via finances or services such as spending money on campaign merchandise.

No because the lawyer was never offering opposition research and never was going to be paid for it, she was actually in the USA for a court case surrounding fraud and she was never actually employed by the Trump campaign. It’s a dead end.

For this to be illegal following law, there would need to be proof that the lawyer was paid.


#24

@Scott @canvas @Daybreak give me a second, there are some good explanations.


#25

I’m thinking you are living a pipe dream… of all the leaks and all the angles supposedly exposed, if that smoking gun had been found, the sieve that we must now call the US Justice system would have spit it out by now. The only way to impeach Trump is to absolutely nail him with something… and the press and the people who work for the executive (who actually think they are the executive) are simply dying to burn him at the stake… Their is no way that it could stay under wraps.

Mueller, because of the way he has stacked his team is the ultimate gatekeeper to what does and does not find its way into a grand jury… and I think that keeping the many, many things that point to the DNC, The Obama Administration and to Hillary Clinton out of the legal world is his main objective.


#26

No need. While you have been posting I have been reading the explanations and I’m going along with them.

This guy is just trying to interpret the law wrongfully and its bad.

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.

Hes trying to equate information with “other thing of value”


#27

Under the FECA-BCRA, a foreign national cannot give any of the following prohibited items in connection with a federal, state, or local election:

A contribution,
A donation of money, or
Other thing of value.

Under these same regulations, a foreign national cannot give any of the following prohibited items in connection with a federal, state, or local election:

Expenditure,
Independent expenditure, or
Disbursement.

Other thing of value. Is the research of value?

Opinion until determined by a court and certain not by your opinion piece.

The deflection from the reason for the loss of the last election continues. The party and candidates offered are broken. No matter how deplorable Trump is, Hillary was determined by the American people as worse.

Until the left leaves it’s progressive agenda and this foolishness this country cannot move ahead. Always remember you reap what you sow. If this continues, the next democrat elected will receive a firestorm of obstruction and hate from half the country.

But then again maybe this is what the left seeks divisiveness at it’s finest.


#28

@Scott @canvas @LouMan

You all are trying to tear down the “other thing of value” section of the law. How so? Why is it that strict of a definition? Why aren’t “in-kind” contributions not included in that definition? Is there a good reason to not include them?

Do you not agree that “information” is not “something of value”, especially “opposition research”, which people pay a lot of money for?


#29

Opposition research was paid towards the person who found the lawyer, not the lawyer themselves.

Information being considered something of value here is a slippery slope.


#30

So… tell me what Don Jr received? Just one easy question… What did he receive?


#31

Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer “exemption” as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone.

key words: compensated by anyone

Last comment on the subreddit I posted sums it up:

So your argument is that a Russian lawyer with extensive ties to the Russian government, of her own accord and with no compensation by any Russian entity, including but not limited to the Russian Government or Russian businesses, took it upon herself to perform opposition research, a process which normally takes thousands of labor hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Why is it slippery slope that opposition research, something that people pay thousands of dollars for at the least is considered something of value?

Why did the officials involved lie on their SF86 forms anyways?


#32

And if a person goes to a meeting and nothing is offered or received is their a crime committed?

I think not.

Focus on this.

Face reality, the left ran a flawed despicable candidate the people rejected. Making excused, looking for a way to get rid of Trump, damage his presidency will accomplish only 1 thing, the same in return and worse for the next democrat that wins a presidential election.

This nonsense will destroy this country as congress has become so partisan that nothing is and will ever get done again. Perhaps you seek a complete collapse of our country.


#33

You have really sucked down all of the Kool-Aid, huh. You should also try answering @Scott’s simple question above. It gets to the heart of the matter. @Louman’s comment also nailed it.

I’m going to address the comment you posted from the sub-reddit because I wasted a whole bunch of time this morning reading it.

This was just a complete misreading of the situation, the idea is that no one actually had any info on Clinton because when the meeting took place, the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya arrived, she said she had no information and instead came to discuss the Magnitsky Act and the adoption of Russian children. When coupled with the emails, we can determine this:

  1. The fact the email arrived in the way it did and the email chain reveals that the Trump campaign had zero contacts with Mrs. Veselnitskaya beforehand.

  2. If collusion did happen, this was the first time that the Trump campaign and the Russian gov actually cooperated (Goldstone was the one that connected them with the Russian gov and with Veselnitskaya through a Russian pop star (Emin Agalarov) who went on to connect them through his father, suggesting that if collusion happened prior to this, the Trump campaign would be able to surpass Goldstone and Agalarov and then Agalarov’s father if they actually had contacts in the Russian gov)

  3. Veselnitskaya wasn’t paid and we can tell this from multiple flags that pop up. She wasn’t mentioned by name in the emails suggesting that Trump Jr/The Trump campaign did not know who she was. The fact that the Trump campaign clearly never met her before as evidenced by the fact that the Trump campaign had no way to contact her other than to go through multiple people.

It’s a slippery slope because foreign corporations and foreign associations are considered to be foreign nationals according to the FEC, these kind of companies usually contribute a lot into US elections, especially foreign associations in terms of opposition research. There is probably a case out there that has set a precedent which is needed for legal framework like this but I’m not going to spend my time looking for it.


#34

@canvas I didn’t see what @Scott posted because I was typing. I will address as many of the points made by @Louman in my response.

To answer your first point and @Scott’s question, how do either of you know exactly what happened in the meeting? And how do you know that the information on Clinton was not leaked there? And does that excuse the Trump campaign for even attempting to receive campaign intelligence from a foreign national? if you try to rob a bank is it illegal if you fail?

I don’t necessarily have a problem with the first two parts of your enumerated list as long as you realize direct contact with this specific woman does not mean that they did not have contact with Russian officials in the past

I do have a problem with the third - the Russian government could have paid her and not the US, but according to the law it still fits the criteria for the offense. To your point about slippery slopes, I will look up the case later - have to head to work.


#35

I can’t speak for @Scott directly but I think I can say that collectively we’re going off numerous reports here, more will be opened with time of course, I have no actual way to answer this than saying I’m going off news sources and its an early story.

Because there were barely any information at the time, if we follow the intelligence communities briefings, Mrs. Veselnitskaya herself would have no information on Clinton at this time (except maybe her dealings with the Ukrainian gov), the DNC cyber attack didn’t happen until weeks later and if information on Clinton was leaked, it most definitely would have been pushed out by the Trump campaign to reputable papers (as was the intention, source: emails).

Not at all. Trump Jr was an idiot during this, absolutely stupid. His lack of political awareness and his opportunism could have hit the Trump campaign bad and I dislike that Manafort and Kushner didn’t try to advise otherwise. The analogy between a bank and this is a bit stretched though (in my opinion) due to difference in laws and the like.

Then why didn’t the Crown Prosecutor of Russia just directly contact the Trump campaign through channels which it obviously used to collude in the future? (which seems to be email following Don Jr’s example lol, jk) The crown prosecutor of Russia clearly was trying to contact them first and considering how high up he is in the Russian government, he would know the necessary channels to contact them.

Apparently these are official documents according to the email which probably wouldn’t be discovered via normal opposition research. If this information truly is high level and sensitive, its likely the Russian Government got it from its own sources within its intelligence agencies. I guess the question now is if that counts as opposition research.


#36

If you think about robbing a bank, are you guilty?

But the again they may not have paid her.

The lefts insistence of guilty until proven innocent will transcend this time and be doubled down on when the next democrat becomes president. Your insistence of damaging this president will follow and be doubled down on for the next democrat elected.

Perhaps this is what the real intent of the left is, to destroy this country.

And how do you know what happened in the meeting?
How do you know what happened in the meeting that Clinton had with the Russians over the years?

Nothing like decisive politics to further enrage an already broken country. Congress on doing your part to further the divisiveness.

As a side note, I am always entertained by the lefts position of the Russians meddling in our election when this country and the last president did exactly the same thing all over the world in the last 8 years. Where was your outrage when Obama blew up the stable governments in Egypt and Libya overthrowing their legal governments? Where was your outrage when Obama went to Israel before their election attempting to influence their election? Where was your outrage when Obama exerted his influence trying to affect the outcome of the Brexit vote. And nothin as Obama after leaving office attempted to influence French voters. Where’s your outrage???

Jerusalem, Israel — February 1, 2015 … Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling Likud Party exposed a US related political marketing organization staffed with former Obama campaigners now working to defeat Netanyahu in an upcoming general election.
Victory 2015, or V15, attracted US media attention after it hired 270 Strategies, a consulting firm whose senior leadership consists mostly of former top staffers for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.

Former President Obama has spoken out for the globalist, Macron, in the French election, saying that it is better to appeal to people’s hopes rather than to their fears. And why would He attempt to influence French voters???


#37

Or perhaps they didn’t consider it of consequence and it wasn’t a lie.


#38

That is a good one. The DNC and people tied directly to Obama were actively trying to oust Netanyahu and there wasn’t any outrage about that. There was a lot of money spent meddling in a foreign election and no one got in any trouble for it. Soros actively meddles in US elections and he is a dual-citizen of Hungary and the United States. Why doesn’t anyone ever talk about that?


#39

I find it amazing the lefts witch hunt for Russian meddling and ignore their parties own efforts at meddling across the world.

Maybe I don’t find it amazing.


#40

@canvas

Your second quoted point is good, and the chronology seems accurate

I agree with your third point entirely, although I think that the analogy isn’t quite as extreme because of crimes such as “conspiracy to commit treason” which would be applicable in this case.

For the fourth point, whatever information may have been there may have been too sensitive for regular channels (see: trump’s attempt to create a non-monitored line to Moscow) as is probably typical for this information

For the last point, it’s an extreme version of opp research imo simply because it is gaining information about a campaign opponent through whichever means are necessary.

And in any case, the relevant statutes do not concern themselves with specifically opposition research, more with generally providing information as a service which could be traded for money (this information certainly could have been).

Will tackle @Louman’s responses shortly. Work is busy today.