Everybody Is Forgetting That Clinton Allies Did The Same Thing As Don Jr.

[corbe]

   I admire your tenacity @ConservativeGranny and Thank You for sharing these posts, very informative.

[ConservativeGranny]

Help me understand how the above supports this statement of your's - "The FEC has already clarified this. Yes receiving opposition research from a foreign national would be in violation. This type of research is not unusual for a campaign to obtain but the legal way to do it is to hire a company and pay them to do it for you."

I'm sorry for implying that you couldn't read. It's been a long day I'm tired and instead of taking it out on you I should just get off of the internet and do something relaxing. I think you misunderstood what I said or I probably didn't state it properly. What I meant to say was that opposition research is not unusual and the legal way to do it is to pay for the services. I didn't mean to imply that paying a foreign national would be. Almost all campaigns do tiers of opposition research. It's a lucrative job and many have built careers doing this type of thing. Legally of course:)

[edpc]

I admire your tenacity @ConservativeGranny and Thank You for sharing these posts, very informative.

Magnitsky is dead, Russia is full of corrupt officials, Natalia Veselnitskaya has sketchy connections.  The rest is bs conjecture that's easily refuted.

[corbe]

Magnitsky is dead, Russia is full of corrupt officials, Natalia Veselnitskaya has sketchy connections.  The rest is bs conjecture that's easily refuted.

  Your first 3 statements @edpc are a given, we agree on that~the BS finally in your post is purely opinion on your part, which you are certainly entiteled to. 

   Something that goes round and round in my head is the brutal GOP Platform fight over Ukraine, when Russia wasn't even on the radar, orchestrated by none other than the Trump surrogates, some privileged to this Don Jr. CF.   

   I think @ConservativeGranny is at least eluding to, Follow the dots, or Money, just as we did for 8 years of obummer.

[edpc]

@corbe

A couple of problems, though.  Trump doesn't think the Russians should be involved in Ukraine, but for some reason, Ukrainians were working against him in the election.  If they were pro-Russia, seems like they're working against their interests if they're colluding.  If they're anti-Russia, they're working against a potential ally.  Either way, it makes no sense.

There's also the issue of the Russian attorney being denied a visa extension in January '16, but somehow making it into NYC 6 months later.  Grassley has asked how/why and it's worth an answer.  Certainly no Trump people could have made that happen with an unfriendly admin in control. 

Too much of this cancels out for anyone to draw any conclusions of guilt, especially in the extremely weak case of conspiracy or collusion.  There's no direct offer from the official.  There's only a 'some guy told me that some lady told him she'd like to give you some info.'  The initial contact mentioned support from the Russian government, but he's talking out of his ass, with no firsthand knowledge of anything.

She gets to NYC and starts with nonsense, then goes into Magnitsky issues.  No information is offered or solicited.  That's just not Jr's say so - it's everyone in the room, including the attorney.  Whatever action she may have wanted didn't transpire.  As I pointed out, the act has been updated and supported by this administration.  The entire structure of the information she provided about the attorney, her motives, the business dealings, US Attorney firing, etc crumbles under a cursory glance, much less close scrutiny.

I was banned from TOS for being critical and calling Trump a duplicitous fraud.  I believe that still, for many reasons, but this Russian nonsense is beyond ridiculous.  What it really comes down to is a Democratic Party and cohorts in the MSM with the biggest case of redass in history over the November loss.  They're acting like petulant children and the president is one.  That's the only reason it perpetuates.

[corbe]

   I agree, it makes no sense @edpc that lifting of the Ukraine support from the platform was very unusual (at the time), and this Kremlin Lawyer is very suspect and Putin laughs tonight.
   I'm not saying any of this collusion $hit is plausible, all I'm advocating is to be open to alternative theories and I think @ConservativeGranny is offering that. 
   I do trust President Trump and his Administration a little more that I trust Putin/Kremlin.

[Emjay]

And just what exactly did Trump do that deserves "scrutiny" the FBI has spent almost a year on RussiaGate and has not found a damn thing that Trump did that was illegal or unethical.

Out there in the Real World nobody is buying this Russian/Trump collusion crap.

[jpsb]

Yes, but it was clearly presented to Junior as coming from officials.

Since when is it illegal to talk to a liar that claims to be an official of the Russian government about Hillary criminal activities in Russian? There is no crime here, none at all, it's a big nothing burger. And it looking more and more like a setup by deep state Dems. An attempted entrapment. All you Nevertrumpers screaming Russia, Russia, Russia are looking more foolish everyday.

[jpsb]

The Clintons have come and gone. I was very concerned about them but they are no longer in power and there was nothing I could do about it. However I expect better from a Republican or a Conservative. Doing what you have accused your enemy of doing and thinking you are winning is a foolish game. Whatever the Clintons did or did not do doesn't matter any longer. We are concerned about the President that we have now. If we have now set the bar so low that we no longer require an honorable man for POTUS what are we trying to save here? What exactly are we "winning"? You will never "MAGA" with an unethical man. It just will not happen. In fact quite the opposite. If we accept this we have become what we claim to abhor and the next president will be worse, and the one after than even more so.

In championing a man who is behaving like the Clintons isn't gaining your side anything. In fact quite the opposite.

Name one illegal thing President Trump or candidate Trump has done. Just one, that should not be so hard since the bar has been set so low.

[jpsb]

He went to the meeting with every intent of breaking the law.

Please site for me the federal or state law that jr was breaking. TIA.

[jpsb]

I just posted earlier today a link to an article about how his actions may have violated Federal election/campaign laws. It may be of some help to you.  If he flew to Moscow to meet with Putin to get information to help his father's campaign he certainly would have been violating the law.

OK I'll play, what law would he be breaking? And the Federal election donation law is a bunch of BS. No court has ever ruled that information is a donation. That is a bogus argument without merit.

[Jazzhead]

Since when is it illegal to talk to a liar that claims to be an official of the Russian government about Hillary criminal activities in Russian? There is no crime here, none at all, it's a big nothing burger. And it looking more and more like a setup by deep state Dems. An attempted entrapment. All you Nevertrumpers screaming Russia, Russia, Russia are looking more foolish everyday.

There may have been no crime, but Junior was damn sure eager to commit one.   Can you doubt that if the Russian government really had provided political dirt in support of Trump's campaign,  Junior would have "loved it" and broken the law without compunction?   The only reason there was no crime was because Junior was set up - not by "deep state Dems", but by the disinformation genius of Russian intelligence.   Junior was naïve,  and I willing for now to give President Trump the benefit of the doubt that his campaign was played for suckers.   

The Dems, of course, are eager to exploit this to the hilt, but that's politics -  the politics as bloodsport we've gotten used to in recent years.   

[roamer_1]

I willing for now to give President Trump the benefit of the doubt that his campaign was played for suckers.   

Riiight. Like that's any better.
There's some 46 dimension underwater chess for ya.

[Jazzhead]

He went to the meeting with every intent of breaking the law.

Bingo.  He was damn lucky he wasn't put in a position to break the law.   The Russians entrapped him for future use - and while the Dems will make political hay,  at least the leverage of blackmail by a foreign adversary has been broken.   

[txradioguy]

A couple of problems, though.  Trump doesn't think the Russians should be involved in Ukraine, but for some reason, Ukrainians were working against him in the election. If they were pro-Russia, seems like they're working against their interests if they're colluding.  If they're anti-Russia, they're working against a potential ally.  Either way, it makes no sense.

IMHO it's the pro Russia forces still within the Government that were willing to help work against Trump.

IIRC the whole reason Russia stepped in was because the corrupt pro Putin leader in the Ukraine was tossed out and a more pro Western leader took over.

I'm guessing they (Pro Russian pols in Ukraine) figured if they helped get Hillary into office she'd back Putin and they'd return to power.

[skeeter]

   I agree, it makes no sense @edpc that lifting of the Ukraine support from the platform was very unusual (at the time), and this Kremlin Lawyer is very suspect and Putin laughs tonight.
   I'm not saying any of this collusion $hit is plausible, all I'm advocating is to be open to alternative theories and I think @ConservativeGranny is offering that. 
   I do trust President Trump and his Administration a little more that I trust Putin/Kremlin.

Info and theories are fine. Conservative Granny is offering conclusions she cannot support (#78).

[Maj. Bill Martin]

So it is OK, just as long as the the guy does it defense..

No, the issue is changing the rules and standards midstream just because you don't like the new guy.

Politicians have been trying to dig up dirt on political opponents forever, and it's never been an issue unless the methods being used are illegal.  So, the Watergate break-in was illegal.  The Demo operative who tapped Gingrich's cell phone acted illegally.  And if someone in Trump's campaign solicited the Russians to illegally hack the DNC server, that would be illegal.

But absent that, simply receiving information from a third party, including a foreign government, is not illegal, and never has been.  That's why it's relevant to point out that Hillary was trying to get information from the Ukrainians, and that foreign intelligence agencies were giving information on Trump to the Obama Administration.  So it's not a question of just "saying" it's okay if the other guy does it -- it's pointing out that it was never illegal for anyone to do it in the first place.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Can you doubt that if the Russian government really had provided political dirt in support of Trump's campaign,  Junior would have "loved it" and broken the law without compunction?   

Specifically, what law would have been broken had the Russians provided to Junior their own documents showing Hillary's dealings with Russia?

@Jazzhead

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Let me help. The FEC has already clarified this. Yes receiving opposition research from a foreign national would be in violation. This type of research is not unusual for a campaign to obtain but the legal way to do it is to hire a company and pay them to do it for you.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93752

That interpretation cannot be accurate.  If it were, campaigns could not accept tips or information of any kind from anyone, private citizens, the press, etc..  And that has never been the rule.  Campaigns use information submitted/offered by third parties all the time without paying for it -- it would be impossible to account for it in the first place.  Especially since no "going rate" even exists for someone who chooses voluntarily to pass on information to you.  How on earth could you even calculate the cost?

Frankly, it would probably be a violation of the First Amendment to require payment for someone else speaking/writing about something.
 
It must be goods or services provided directly to the campaign -- information alone provided gratis cannot possibly qualify, and would be impossible to quantify even if it did.  In the example cited in that blog article, it was campaign mailers -- to which a price/cost could be reliably attributed -- that were at issue.  And considering how common it is for people to provide valuable information to campaigns without being paid for it, you'd think the author of that blog should have been able to find an FEC ruling holding that such actions are violations.  He didn't -- the best he could do is find something with physical mailers that had to be printed or produced.

The other example he uses was polling services, but again, there is typically a specific cost usually charged for conducting a poll.  There is no specific cost associated with someone simply handing you information.  What would be a violation is if you went to an opposition research firm, told them to dig up dirt on an opponent, and then they didn't charge you for it despite them being in the business of conducting opposition research.  But that's a completely different situation from someone choosing to do research of their own volition and then funneling you the results.  Heck, every citizen who has emailed a campaign with opinions, arguments, or information has done that.

[edpc]

I'm guessing they (Pro Russian pols in Ukraine) figured if they helped get Hillary into office she'd back Putin and they'd return to power.

Right, so if they're pro-Russia officials, it would stand to reason they'd have some sort of contact with Russian operatives.  If they're in Ukraine working against Trump and their allies in Russia are colluding with Trump, their dual efforts work against each other.  That's why none of this makes any sense if you really look at it. 

[skeeter]

That interpretation cannot be accurate.  If it were, campaigns could not accept tips or information of any kind from anyone, private citizens, the press, etc..  And that has never been the rule.  Campaigns use information submitted/offered by third parties all the time without paying for it -- it would be impossible to account for it in the first place.  Especially since no "going rate" even exists for someone who chooses voluntarily to pass on information to you.  How on earth could you even calculate the cost?

Frankly, it would probably be a violation of the First Amendment to require payment for someone else speaking/writing about something.
 
It must be goods or services provided directly to the campaign -- information alone provided gratis cannot possibly qualify, and would be impossible to quantify even if it did.  In the example cited in that blog article, it was campaign mailers -- to which a price/cost could be reliably attributed -- that were at issue.  And considering how common it is for people to provide valuable information to campaigns without being paid for it, you'd think the author of that blog should have been able to find an FEC ruling holding that such actions are violations.  He didn't -- the best he could do is find something with physical mailers that had to be printed or produced.

The other example he uses was polling services, but again, there is typically a specific cost usually charged for conducting a poll.  There is no specific cost associated with someone simply handing you information.  What would be a violation is if you went to an opposition research firm, told them to dig up dirt on an opponent, and then they didn't charge you for it despite them being in the business of conducting opposition research.  But that's a completely different situation from someone choosing to do research of their own volition and then funneling you the results.  Heck, every citizen who has emailed a campaign with opinions, arguments, or information has done that.

But CG's statement, if true, certainly would be convenient for the democrats, given the developing Fusion GPS/dossier story.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I think this may have been an attempt to differentiate between Junior's caper (illegal) and the developing Fusion GPS/dossier situation (fine nothing to see here).

Right.  I think the author of that blog realizes that gathering information from a foreign source itself isn't illegal, so he came up with the argument that it must be paid for to try to find some illegality.

It's a really crappy argument not only for the reasons I gave, but also because the remedy would be nonexistent.  Normally, if a campaign engages in that kind of act, the remedy ordered is that they must pay that amount, plus a fine tied to the value of the goods/services.  But nothing was exchanged, so there's no basis for a fine, and even if it was, there is no way to assign a monetary value of what "should" have been paid for them.  So even if it was a valid argument, it would be a technical, nominal violation at most.

The fact that such a weak argument is being advanced at all may be an indication that the whole story was overblown.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

But CG's statement, if true, certainly would be convenient for the democrats, given the developing Fusion GPS/dossier story.

But it's not true.  It isn't even close to being true.  Just a simple thought experiment about what it would really mean if any information passed to a campaign must be paid for confirms that it cannot be true.

The crappy legal analyses polluting the media right now are an embarrassment.  I don't blame posters for linking those articles -- I blame the crappy and/or biased lawyers who deliberately present crappy arguments either as clickbait, or for partisan purposes.  There is a regulation that expressly permits the performance of volunteer services for a campaign, and foreign nationals are not excluded from it, though they are expressly excluded from monetary or in-kind contributions.

§ 100.74 - Uncompensated services by volunteers.
 
The value of services provided without compensation by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee is not a contribution.

So, if someone chooses to spend their own time to go out and dig up dirt, and then pass it along to a campaign without payment, that is not a violation of election law.  That should have been obvious to any remotely competent attorney attempting an honest inquiry.

[skeeter]

§ 100.74 - Uncompensated services by volunteers.
 
The value of services provided without compensation by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee is not a contribution.

                           
Thank you for this ^

Unfortunately, by the time a reasonable analysis can be made of the current set of facts the media hyenas and axe-grinders have already moved on to the next ridiculous charge.

Wash rinse repeat until they achieve that which they could not gain by a fair election.