This is what our laws say about foreign influence in elections. It says that foreign governments and foreign nationals cannot provide anything of value to American election campaigns, and campaigns cannot solicit or receive anything of value from foreign nationals and foreign governments. It doesn't matter whether it swung the election or not. Trump's tweet that people do this all the time and it's perfectly legal either shows massive legal ignorance, or is a bald-faced lie.
Monday, August 06, 2018
What the laws say
This is what our laws say about foreign influence in elections. It says that foreign governments and foreign nationals cannot provide anything of value to American election campaigns, and campaigns cannot solicit or receive anything of value from foreign nationals and foreign governments. It doesn't matter whether it swung the election or not. Trump's tweet that people do this all the time and it's perfectly legal either shows massive legal ignorance, or is a bald-faced lie.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
"either shows massive legal ignorance, or is a bald-faced lie"
Or, in this case, both.
The difference between the Trump Jr meeting and the Steele dossier is seemingly one of legal technicalities and methods, and not moral. I'm as upset about one as I am the other - which, honestly, isn't that much.
But then, I typically don't differentiate between actions based on what party they belong to.
Speaking of massive ignorance, Victor is unaware that none of the legal experts in the referenced article think Trump is displaying massive legal ignorance, or lying. They don't have enough information. Do you know something they don't?
SteveK said...
Speaking of massive ignorance, Victor is unaware that none of the legal experts in the referenced article think Trump is displaying massive legal ignorance, or lying. They don't have enough information. Do you know something they don't?
Come on man they are writing a politifact so their purpose is not to make a political point of their own but to objectively answer questions. Just because they write from neutral perspective doesn't mean they don't privately agree that he's guilty of violating the law,
Starhopper is probably right. I'm glad to see a healthy skepticism of people in power. The best action is to limit their power.
A lot of information comes out during political campaigns. We all take in the information and make judgments. It's interesting that some information is mostly ignored and the source of the information is what becomes the story (Democratic Party corruption is of little interest, but the damn Russian hacking, that's what matters). Other times the information becomes the story while the source is ignored (Trump Jr's email to the Russian lobbyist is treason, the source of that hacked private email is of no interest).
Are there people who question both the information and source of that information when weighing a story? Or is it all about who you favor when judging information and source?
Democratic party and Russia? That is insane. Ptuin was head of KGB. He has had poppets murdered. He is a serious Hitler wanna be. you seriously think that Obama and Hilary count as worse than Putin? Of course Russia controlling our elections is a lot different and much worse!
Republicans regularly conspire to deny the vote to minorities they do it in every election. They have gerrymandered the whole damn country,
that is deranged. You believe the Pizagate thing?
"The difference between the Trump Jr meeting and the Steele dossier is seemingly one of legal technicalities..."
In the same way that the difference between a murderer and a non-murderer is the "legal technicality" that the murderer committed murder, and the non-murderer did not.
The law that the Trump Jr meeting broke is about campaign donations/ contributions. The info Don Jr was promised was a thing of value that was offered for free, and is thus a contribution/donation from a foreign power.
The Steele dossier on the other hand was paid for. The Clinton Campaign hired Fusion GPS, who in turn hired Michael Steele, a former British MI-6 agent. Since the Steele dossier was paid for, it was obviously not a contribution/donation, and so obviously did not break any campaign laws.
The point of the law is to keep foreign nationals from trying to buy influence with politicians, not to prevent American campaign managers from hiring foreigners as private contractors. The former, the country has a pretty obvious reason to try to prevent, the latter, not so much.
But you keep on with your lifelong mission of defending the indefensible and false-equivalence-ing the un-false-equivalence-able.
If you are on trial for campaign related felonies, it is no defense to say that your opponent's campaign also committed felonies, even if you are right about that. This reminds me of my experience as a substitute teacher. Ask a child "What did you do?" and if child answers "Johnny did X," I take that as a confession, pure and simple.
"Ask a child 'What did you do?' and if child answers 'Johnny did X,' I take that as a confession, pure and simple."
A confession of what? Really, it's that simple?
Perhaps the substitute teacher didn't get the child's questions: Are you convicting on instinct instead of evidence? Are your scales of justice balanced equally between the child and Johnny?
Hey doc my experience as a sub teacher,i told the kids (high school) if you shut up and read for the period I'll let you go 15 minutes early. They did, they were silent as little lambs. I let them go early. I was fired. I said "but I got them to read." they said "we den't need them to read we need them to be out of the hall."
Perhaps the substitute teacher didn't get the child's questions: Are you convicting on instinct instead of evidence? Are your scales of justice balanced equally between the child and Johnny?
Dave I'm sure Victor just antisocially said: what did you do?" to any child that approached him for any reason,. "please sir, i'd like some more..." 'what did you do!?""
No I would be approaching the child having seen what looks to me like wrongdoing on the child's part. An child will only appeal to the actions of others to explain or justify their own wrongdoing.
After yesterday's Rep. Nunes' tape, how on Earth can anyone continue to pretend that our president is not a criminal? The pretzel twisting that someone would have to subject their brains to in order to defend him at this point has got to hurt!
Starhopper: What did Nunes say - or was it Trump on the tape?
You can watch/listen to the whole thing here.
I listened to the intro where Maddow says we will hear Nunes. So comments from Nunes means Trump is a criminal. Uh, mmkay.
In the meantime, I started your book.
That was my way of saying I appreciate your point.
we have met the enemy...
Joe,
You remind me of Lewis' Great Divorce. Forgive me if I don't remember exactly (it's been at least 3 years since I have read the book): As they are riding the bus to hell, there is a writer (I remember him as a communist) who kept telling others to read his writings. He thought they were very important.
I will appreciate a correction on my memory on the book.
Nunes seems to think it essential that Republicans be re-elected to majorities in both houses of Congress, because Mueller won't exonerate the President, so we have to. Nunes has done everything possible to limit inquiry into the President's conduct with Russia and to attack the propriety of the Mueller investigation with questions about FISA warrants, etc. If the Dems win the majority in the House, then he loses the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee falls to the aggressive Democrat Adam Schiff, who wants to do a thorough investigation of the Russia scandal along the lines of the Senate Watergate Hearings under Sam Ervin in the 1970s, which revealed the White House Tapes, included John Dean's harmful testimony against Nixon, and eventually resulted in the Nixon's resignation to prevent inevitable impeachment and removal. If that happens, Nunes says on the tape that everything will be lost. I take it this means impeachment, or if not, maybe Nunes fears that Trump, facing a Democratic Congress, instead of just vetoing everything they put through, decides that he is the ultimate dealmaker, and so to prevent impeachment, maybe he will sign some things the Democrats want on immigration or health care. Who knows, maybe even single payer. After all, Trump's conservative convictions are questionable, even if the actions of his administration are conservative. Maybe he thinks the Democrats won't impeach him if he makes a deal with them, because they know that Pence is a much more principled conservative and would never sign Democratic bills.
Post a Comment