Clinton hired a us firm to find out ■■■■ on trump…that’s not illegal…not in the lifespan of this nation is it…you wish it was…that’s it…its been looked at…there is no there there…yet you keep on parroting the same lines over and over expecting some new result. You and doug…
Stop wasting everyone’s time with this crap.
Like i said, as long as Clinton goes thru an intermediary, to pay foreign nationals for opposition research on a presidential opposition candidate, it’s all fine and dandy.
So why even have election laws, if all I need to do is pay Peter to pay Paul, and go around the law?
Boring…see what I mean…keep on going same line over and over again…get something new
Simple, it does not make sense to me. If it’s illegal to pay a foreign national for opposition research, then why is it legal if I pay you to pay the foreign national to provide the information for me?
I’ve seen the misuse of the term “foreign national” a number of times. You think it means something sinister – someone in a foreign government working against the U.S. However, it doesn’t mean that. Wanna know what it means?
From Wiki:
"According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security a foreign national is defined simply as “an individual who is a citizen of any country other than the United States.”[3] The Brookhaven National Laboratory, under direction from the U.S. Department of Energy, further explains that, from the perspective of the United States, a foreign national is, “A person who was born outside the jurisdiction of the United States, is a citizen of a foreign country, and has not become a naturalized U.S. citizen under U.S. law. This includes legal permanent residents (also known as permanent resident aliens).”[4] This definition presumably also applies to anyone who has successfully relinquished U.S. citizenship.
However, the precise definition of “foreign national” depends on the context. For example, contrary to the above, 2 U.S.C. § 441e, which prohibits foreign nationals from making political contributions, defines “foreign national” to exclude legal permanent residents."
That’s pretty innocuous, wouldn’t you agree?
The context of a foreign national, in my posts, means a person who is a citizen of a foreign country, living and working outside the US.
Uh huh. (filler)
Fusion highered him…legal…or you have a problem who a private business highers?
See simple but you will refuse it because…hillary
this is just like the whole Trump being a liar thing.
if Trump voters can bring everyone (or someone) down to his level (“X” did it too, “Y” lies more, etc) then the goal is accomplished. problem is, when you get down in the mud defending a sleazy dude, you get tarnished yourself (as we’re seeing with so many of Trump’s hires).
Well, if it’s illegal for me, as a presidential candidate, to pay a foreign national to provide me opposition research on my opponent, then it should be illegal for me to simply pay you to pay the foreign national to get it for me.
Forget Clinton, and Trump, this should be universal
I agree, the political hacks refuse to ever see the wrong committed by their politicians.
I see where you confusion is. You are conflating campaign contributions with someone being hired for providing oppo research. They are not the same thing. Don Jr. did not hire the Russian attorney to provide what he thought was oppo research. Supposedly, the Russians were willing to “give” it to them which is against the law.
As well, these were not just foreign nationals, the allegation is that they were foreign nationals operating at the behest of a foreign government, to influence the outcome of our election.
That was made clear in the offer email to Don, Jr.
And he “loved it.”
Telling someone what you know is not a campaign contribution.
You can’t criminalize just telling information. That’s sort of ludicrous.
Perhaps you should be trump’s lawyer. A spot will likely open again soon.
If you’re going to be the prosecutor I’m willing to give it a try.
Good point.
And it’s entirely coincidence that Trump’s interest in this election happened to align so nicely with the interest of the Government of Vladimir Putin. That part is just coincidence.
We will never know what they would have done.
If they were told of “compromising information about Mrs. Clinton.” If the information they received showed unlawful activity, they could have reported it to legal authorities, or released it to the press, would that have been illegal? Or they could have used this information in a campaign attack ad, now that might be illegal.
Trump should have just given his lawyer a big wad of money, and had him hire an opposition research firm to buy the information from the Russian lawyer, like Clinton did.
What I stated was a fact - nothing more, nothing less - for the both of you and anyone else reading along.
You spoke of “logical possibilites” but there is no logic to a possibility for which there is no evidence present at all. That is what we call pure speculation.
It is just as logical to speculate that those pesky Martians spoiled the whole meeting. NO ONE has ever spoken of them, but…
M
No. It is ONLY illegal to get information if you were a party to obtaining it in an illegal way - If you stole the information, for instance. If it was illegal to obtain information - even from someone else who got it illegally - then every major newspaper in the country would constantly have reporters in jail for printing illegal leaks. Can’t happen.
In this case it wasn’t even illegal information that was offered. It was supposedly going to be provided by the legitimate channel of the Russian State Prosecutor.
As to the FEC rule, sorry. That DOES NOT pertain to providing information for free. The FEC CANNOT write a law that prohibits the free exchange of information from ANY SOURCE. That would be a HUGE 1st amendment violation.
For instance, the Clinton campaign obtained information from the Ukrainian government concerning Paul Manafort and they USED it - perfectly fine and legal to do so.
M
