The media has largely ignored that Hillary Clinton and her campaign spent a huge amount of money to fund the efforts of former British spy Christopher Steele to gather dirt on Trump, including information from the Russian government and intelligence figures..."Fake law" is a great catchphrase. You could just say that somebody is wrong about the law. But "fake law" plays into our present-day anxieties so well.
However, this particular meeting is not “done all the time” because it was uniquely dumb. Trump Jr. pulled Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner into a meeting with unknown participants connected to the Russian government in Trump Tower as members of the media meandered around downstairs. The irony is that the Clintons showed how this is “done all the time” with cutouts and third parties like Steele. Indeed, despite denials during and after the campaign, the Clinton team only admitted to funding the dossier after the media stumbled onto the paper trail long after the election. When caught, they simply declared it was done all the time as “opposition research.”...
If the Russians had evidence of criminal conduct by Hillary Clinton, her campaign or her family foundation, the Trump campaign had every reason to want to know about it. That is precisely what the Clinton campaign spent millions to do, talking to Russians and other foreigners investigating Trump....
In the end, the Trump Tower controversy is not based on “fake news” as claimed by the president, but the federal crime alleged by the media is based on fake law.
August 9, 2018
"[T]he president is only partially correct in saying that the meeting with Trump Jr. is 'done all the time in politics.'"
Writes Jonathan Turley at The Hill.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
151 comments:
The Trumps were amateurs. That is why the Trump kids hired Manafort in the first place.
This was an amateur mistake but not a crime.
Meg Ryan fake orgasm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0OeM6UUAoI
Digging for dirt on the R's = totally 100% super-legal.
Digging for dirt on the Clintons is illegal and you might even find yourself Seth Riched.
That sounds about right - including the "dumb" part.
Let it go.
Strictly speaking it's a fake fake orgasm.
Indeed, despite denials during and after the campaign, the Clinton team only admitted to funding the dossier after the media stumbled onto the paper trail long after the election. When caught, they simply declared it was done all the time as “opposition research.”...
"Done all the time" excuse only works with the Clintons.
"The Trumps were amateurs. That is why the Trump kids hired Manafort in the first place.
This was an amateur mistake but not a crime."
They're all criminals, you big dummy. Perhaps, only Nixon was a bigger crook. Shame on the Trumptards for putting an unqualified loser in the White House. It is NOT a job for amateurs. You were a dangerous unqualified, inept physician; now you're a disqualified drug addict, and internet troll. You show signs of psychosis as well.
He doesn't understand what the President means by saying fake news.
There is an interesting thing President Trump has done that many of his voters appreciate and the media loathes.
Prior to Trump, the media always wanted precise language from Republicans. And even with precise language, we often would see willful misunderstanding from the media. A good example of this phenomenon is a Jordan Petersen interview with a British lady.
Trump is the exact opposite of precise language. And yet, we know what he means.
We can look at it like this. In the past, politicians spoke precisely and we never knew what they really meant.
Now Trump speaks imprecisely and we know exactly what he means.
"Fake law" is the mirror image of Nixon's "Its legal if the President does it." In Fake law, its illegal if and only if Republicans do it.
"Now Trump speaks imprecisely and we know exactly what he means."
That is a stupid comment if there ever was one. Stop sucking up to a very ignorant and nutty president. It is disgusting. No movie has yet been made called the "The Nutty President," so "The Nutty Professor" will have to do for now. But, the Trump example is most assuredly NOT funny.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nutty_Professor
Ummm, Turmpit? That schtick was cute in the few weeks leading up to Trump's inauguration, but he's been president for a year and a half now. He has a record and it's a damn good one.
Bluster and splutter all you want. You can't change his record.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said... "Done all the time" excuse only works with the Clintons.
Of Course it only works with the Clintons
"Done all the time" means Done all the time by the Clintons
where we going to get news about Hillary's campaign, from chuck todd, Maggie Haberman, they were all in on the rizzotto, by contrast not only did Hillary have steele, but she had halper lent paid through a dia front, mifsud and downer from mi 6, (btw luke harding has been a stringer for downer's company since 2009)
That's one of the things that makes this whole sorry episode so ridiculous (and makes the TrueConservative/NeverTrump position so stupid): the ONLY thing that makes what Trump's campaign did allegedly illegal while what Clinton's campaign (and plenty of past campaigns) did just fine was the fact that Clinton's campaign employed a couple of law firms in order to obfuscate what they were really doing.
That supposedly makes it not just perfectly legal, but morally OK according to super smart TrueConservatives, while the amateur Trump campaign's neglecting to use a sufficient number of cut outs means they're guilty of treason and should be jailed.
Adults believe this and are happy to admit they believe it. Ridiculous.
Furthermore akhmetshin, the chief of the delegation at trump tower, is married to a long time Ukrainian foreign intelligence officer, his law partner, Edward Lieberman, is associated with madeline Albrights firm, Stonebridge, bruce ohr's sister, martha genesoke, is a long time ABC producer who worked with among others, brian ross,
"Now Trump speaks imprecisely and we know exactly what he means."
Unless he fake builds a fake wall and gets fake Mexico to fake pay for it. Then he'll be no better than Read My Lips If You Like Your Doctor I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman Of Mass Destruction.
Meanwhile, the media ignores the illegal acquisition of FISA warrants by law enforcement officials somewhat good at hiding their activities. That, and how the DOJ was still communicating with Steele even in 2017, which was long after the FBI supposedly fired Steele.
Cynthia Nixon is really into fake law.
some of the details in this post,
https://apelbaum.wordpress.com/2018/03/17/the-mechanics-of-deception/
Nellie ohr, seems extremely well connected, she's moved on to Accenture, the husk of what used to be Arthur Andersen,
Wow - the more I learn about the involved parties, the more I feel like Alice in Wonderland.
So Ohr's sister just happened to be a producer for ABC - what a coincidence!
Martha Ohr, per her linkedin.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/martha-ohr-055a214
>bruce ohr's sister, martha genesoke, is a long time ABC producer who worked with among others, brian ross,
(eaglebeak)
The Trumps were definitely amateurs, and certainly did make some dumb hires.
But remember, about Manafort--Trumps didn't know about him and his $$$ and Ukraine (and Feds never bothered to tell them)-- AND
Manafort previously worked for Ford, Reagan, Geo HW Bush, and Bob Dole, so you can see why the Trumps hired him when they needed a delegate wrangler before the convention.
If you look at his Wikipedia page, you'll see that he also worked for all kinds of African, Kashmiri, Saudi, etc., personages.
"woman of mass destruction"
nice!
thank God she's not president
the thicket of just journal reporter conflict of interests, is thicker than the tentacles on jack sparrow's pirate ship, so are the innumerable ties, to british, Italian and other intelligence services,
trumpit got out of the locked room again.
Are you still molesting kids ?
It's your your evidence standard.
You show signs of psychosis as well. - Trumpit
The competition is stiff on this blog, but that just may be the least self-aware comment I've ever read.
Meade wrote:
Unless he fake builds a fake wall and gets fake Mexico to fake pay for it. Then he'll be no better than Read My Lips If You Like Your Doctor I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman Of Mass Destruction."
I think Meade's account has been hijacked by the Russians!
bruce ohr's sister, martha genesoke, is a long time ABC producer who worked with among others, brian ross,
Deep State MSM division. They are all related.
Incestuous all the way down.
It was stupid to do.....maybe. However, if you read the media closely that has covered this meeting, you will note that they basically never tell you the details about the e-mail that Trump Jr. received from Goldstone- they allow readers to make the mistake that the meeting was about the hacked/leaked DNC e-mails- thus allowing certain idiots and liars to make the claim that the dirt hoped for came from illegal computer hacking. All Trump Jr. was promised was dirt that was supposed to have come from the Russian government prosecution arm- taking a meeting on that not only isn't illegal, it might not even be stupid. If you think you are doing something illegal and unethical, you hire numerous cutouts to take the meeting.
Trumpit: "It is NOT a job for amateurs."
LOL
$145 Million to the Clinton's after handing over US uranium.
PROFESSIONAL's baby, professionals...
"connected to the Russian government" is weasel phrase the media uses because it doesn't want to inform its audience that the Russians involved in this meeting were NOT ACTUAL GOVERNMENT AGENTS and by all accounts were not sent there by the Russian government. The media talks about them being agents of private wealthy Russian citizens. They call those folks "oligarchs" to make them sound more governmenty, but they're not state actors either. The folks in the meeting are numerous degrees away from being state actors, and to claim, as so many leftist do, that this meeting PROVES collusion or even TREASON is beyond logic and reason. There's no connecting the dots here. These claims represent nothing more than the deranged wishes of the crazies who LOST the last election and can't get over it.
"what the Clinton campaign spent millions to do, talking to Russians and other foreigners investigating Trump"
Even at this late date, do we know exactly how much Clinton spent on oppo-research collusion with foreigners?
We now know some of the ways in which Hill's effort intersected with the CIA and FBI. But at least at the outset Brennan seems to have initiated his separate dirt-fabrication collusion with foreigners like Downer. Exactly when and how did the Dem and Deep State colluders begin to colluders with each other?
Having nothing to hide, actual "transparency", is the new "dumb"?
However, this particular meeting is not “done all the time” because it was uniquely dumb. Trump Jr. pulled Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner into a meeting with unknown participants connected to the Russian government in Trump Tower as members of the media meandered around downstairs.
This assessment is hardly news to me. When the whole Trump tower meeting story initially broke, my first reaction was that Don Jr. was clearly pretty naive (I may have thought and/or posted a harsher term), sloppy, and careless... but despite that there was nothing illegal there. It was just amatuer.
I also find it ridiculous and pathetic that many on the left still imagine anything more about it, or tries to imply darkly anything more than what it clearly was. But here we are, over a year after this story broke the left is still dwelling in collusion fantasy land. I honestly can't say if they truly believe their own nonsense. I mean, surely some of them must not?
American intelligence undoubtedly knew about the meeting ahead of time. If they had serious concerns about Russian penetration, and if they played fair (ha), they would have warned DJT and Jr.
Apparently, O had to approve a special visa for Veselnitskaya. That suggests officials knew what was happening and wanted to see the event unfold, the better to use it later.
The Dem oppo research team was also directly involved, as Simpson met with Veselnitskaya before and afterwards. Of course, she is linked to "oligarchs," for whom, as it happened, Simpson also worked. No doubt Simpson used his admin contacts to get her into the country in the first place. Most likely, the meeting was a set-up in which the colluders colluded.
Speculation: could Veselnitskaya and her friends be among Steele's sources?
This was an amateur mistake but not a crime.
Well, if Michael K says this it must be true. After all, who knows the vagaries of Federal Election law better than a retired surgeon.
I like Turley, but he mischaracterizes what actually happened in this section:
"Indeed, despite denials during and after the campaign, the Clinton team only admitted to funding the dossier after the media stumbled onto the paper trail long after the election."
The media didn't even stumble onto it- someone in the DoJ leaked it to the media when the DoJ could no longer hide it because the FISA documents were revealed the Congress- and the media, WaPo and the NYTimes, printed it only because they were instructed to in order to control the narrative on its release.
One thing that surprised me was that they didn't stop the meeting sooner. Kushner bailed but the others sat there, what 20 minutes?
Tell us, Freder, which election law that makes it a crime for someone to meet with a Russian in New York?
Ralph,
I think the Trump people weren't quite as stupid and naive as some people seem to think- they had a plan for the meeting- let the Russians do all of the talking. In other words, don't lead the conversation in a particular direction- let the visitors bring up the topics on their own initiative. I think anyone with an IQ above 100 would realize that such a meeting could be a set up, so you don't want any recording that might be surreptitiously made to have you directing the dialogue. I think Trump Jr. recorded the meeting, and if he did, he definitely gave it to Mueller. It will probably be leaked to the media at some point when it is most useful to Trump- I write this because no leak has come from Mueller at this point in time.
Yancey Ward - @ 12:59 - indeed. The bigger story is usually always how the media lace their narrative and innuendo. Facts and details omitted on purpose.
Blogger Trumpit said... "Shame on the Trumptards for putting an unqualified loser in the White House. It is NOT a job for amateurs.....?"8/9/18, 12:10 PM
So in your mind, what made Obama a true professional and not an amateur?
In terms of fake law, it's worth noting that this does not just apply to contacts with foreigners. The same phrase ( thing of value ) from the same campaign finance law would have to be interpreted the same way when dealing with donation limits and reporting requirements. That means that if a wealthy donor contributes the maximum allowed to your campaign, then also gives you valuable information ( such as hey, you should ask my friend so-and-so, he would probably make a donation too, ) then he has just violated campaign finance law.
Likewise, if a campaign volunteer donates some supplies, and also some information, and the combined total pushes them up to an amount that requires reporting to the FEC, and you don't report it, that too is a campaign finance violation.
If you accept this definition of thing of value then basically every campaign for anything beyond town dog-catcher would be guilty of numerous campaign finance violations.
The problem, of course, is the lengths Don Jr. had to go to try and get this information.
1. Carve twenty minutes out of your day.
2. Get up and walk to the elevator.
3. Go down a few floors.
4. Get back in time to finish sandwich.
Tell us, Freder, which election law that makes it a crime for someone to meet with a Russian in New York?
Umm, this one:
"52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:
Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;
Making any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district, or local political party (including donations to a party nonfederal account or office building account);
Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication;
Making any donation to a presidential inaugural committee."
Now, you can argue that Clinton might have violated the spirit of the law with the Steele Dossier (and you certainly won't find me defending her on that one), but she did not violate the letter of the law.
Don, Jr., on the other hand, was obviously expecting to receive "other thing[s] of value" from the meeting. He might have been dumb and naive, but what was Manfort's excuse?
Junior released all his emails on the first day the meeting made it into the news--about a year ago. They clearly show how little involvement he had in the whole process. From memory it was something like-- Someone has information on Hillary that we would be interested in? What do they have? They want to talk in person? OK, Maybe I can make time later this week if they come to us. [15 minutes into the meeting in a text to another Trump person at the meeting] This seems to be going nowhere all she wants to talk about is adoption law. I'm outahere.
Noting morally, ethically, or legally wrong. At any level.
Freder: "Don, Jr., on the other hand, was obviously expecting to receive "other thing[s] of value" from the meeting."
Like, what? A dossier maybe?...
LOL
Laughable.
Freder,
Trump Jr. didn't receive anything by every account of the meeting I have seen leaked to the press. He didn't solicit anything either- he took a meeting with someone who had promised something by proxy through someone else.
Clinton not only violated the spirit of the law, she also did to the letter that you quoted above- her campaign provided the funds to Steele for something of value- cutouts won't help you here. Even worse, this expenditure was apparently mischaracterized in the expenditures filings, though this last part is still be thoroughly proven in my opinion.
Noting morally, ethically, or legally wrong. At any level.
Well, there were certainly legal issues (see above). As for the first two, I am glad I do not share your morals and ethics and also glad I do not conduct business with you. You seem to have not a clue what morals or ethics are.
I am glad I do not share your morals and ethics and also glad I do not conduct business with you.
Wow ! We are just blessed with moral guardians today.
Field Marshall Freder even graced us with his wisdom.
Actually, I'm glad you don't, too.
After all, who knows the vagaries of Federal Election law better than a retired surgeon.
Yes, Field Marshalls are so much better informed.
It was important to have the correct layers of shell corporations, the way Hillary did. You would think Trump would have known this, but perhaps his soul is not so corrupt as Hillary’s to even think of creating that legal barrier to investigation.
Us mortals just don’t get it that when you pay a foreign spy to gather dirt from Putin’s spies, it’s listed as “legal expenses” on campaign reporting forms. This doesn’t seem legal to us, but if you have a ‘D’ after your name, you need not fear investigation.
I see the Left remains committed to re-litigating their epic LOSS in 2016. Nobody cares about meetings during the campaign from 2 years ago. Frankly, nobody cares about DNC emails or John "Password" Podesta's emails from back then, either.
Get over it and move on, I'd humbly suggest.
Freder: " As for the first two, I am glad I do not share your morals and ethics and also glad I do not conduct business with you."
LOL
Hillary voter sez what?
Manafort was a campaign manager for Trump?
Does anybody find it odd that Hillary’s campaign manager had 75K shares of stock given to him by Gazprom in a company whose value utterly collapsed the day after Hillary lost the election?
Naah! Only a rube would think that all of the millions that passed between Putin’s cronies and the Clinton cronies were any more problematic than a Boy Scout putting his paper route money into Savings Bonds.
now you're a disqualified drug addict, and internet troll. You show signs of psychosis as well.
Trumpit must have wandered in front of a mirror while typing on his phone.
As purely a political matter, I will give Dems credit for their unceasing political outrage machine, geared towards peeling off the 9% of Obama voters who voted for Trump.
There is a natural and healthy ebb and flow to our political system. Trump can't win every political battle. If losing the House let's of some steam, tempers the Left outrage, ironically it may be a good thing for Trump's reelection chances. (See 1994 midterms, the Clinton reelection; see 2010 midterms, then Obama reelection.)
Building a bigger GOP Senate majority though would be nice. Many more federal judges.
I find it amusing that Michael K can't even spell his insults correctly.
(and you certainly won’t find me defending her on that one), but she did not violate the letter of the law.
LOL. Still defending the old crone who took 145 million dollars from Putin, not counting the millions Podesta received! Of course it went to her “charitable foundation” the one that paid Bill Clinton 17 million dollars for a part time job as “chancellor” of dear old Clinton Foundation U!
How much of that 17 million dollars personally pocketed by the Clintons came from Putin? More than a little.
Remember the first woman that came out after the pussy tape made the news? She was an older woman that claimed that Trump made her uncomfortable on a commercial flight twenty-years prior--called him an octopus? Well bloggers discovered she was Hillary's fucking secretary at the Clinton Foundation--a fact never reported by the Media. Think she contacted Hillary saying that she had a story o tell? And that Clinton people made the arrangements to get her in front of a camera and on every news show that night? Did Hillary think she would get something of value out of this? Did she assign a value and list it on her campaign contributions list?
Get fucking real. Of course she didn't.
but she did not violate the letter of the law
Shell corporations! Trump should have formed shell corporations, and then liberals would stop all of this noise. What a lost opportunity! The problem was that he lacked the Clintons’ long experience in corrupt practices and how to hide them.
I wonder if a permit to speak at the Brandenburg Gates was “a thing of value”? Let’s drag Obama off to prison! Lock him up! Freder has given us the legal case!
I wonder if telling the Russians that if they stop making trouble for him during the election, he could be more flexible afterwards was “collusion”? Of course not! Because reasons! And the ‘D’ after his name!
Nellie Ohr is also ex-CIA...
garagemahall used to visit every Democrat politician is Wisconsin ranting about secret servers. Do you think that any of them kisted his visit as a campaign contribution?
The Left is still butt-hurt from losing to Trump in 2016.
Like the Big Bang, everything flows from this original butt-hurt. The lawsuits, the indictments of Russian Trolls, the reckless impeachment talks, the riots, the protests, the Pussy-Hats.
Be advised, though, regardless of what happens in the midterms, the collective butt-hurting will continue in 2020.
Hillary didn’t just do the Uranium One favor. She killed Keystone, a huge favor to Putin, while SoS and while receiving all of that money. Plus lots of other money from foreign powers who had business before the State Department.
She then not only destroyed emails from the time she was taking that money and making favorable decisions for Russia and others, she destroyed records of her meetings as Secretary of State, destroyed federal records which is certainly against the letter and spirit of the law.
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.
Good thing that Obama never appointed an Inspector General to oversee the State Department while Hillary was there, or there might have been problems!
I've been trying to understand the theory that the Trump campaign's contact with the Russian woman could have resulted in a violation of US election laws if she had actually provided dirt on Hillary, but the Clinton campaign's contacts with Steele, a Brit, and through him Sources A, B, C, etc., all Russians, who did provide (unverified) dirt on Trump, did not violate the law.
I suppose (and I'd love the Trump critics to chime in on this) the theory is that Madame V was going to provide her information to the Trump campaign for free, whereas Simpson and Steele were paid for the imformation they provided to Clinton. So Madame V would have contributed something of value, whereas Simpson and Steele simply sold a product.
Anti-Trumpers: Is that correct?
If so, how do we know that Madame V was promising to provide information for free? Wouldn't that be inconsistent with the accusation that the Trump campaign was "colluding" with the Russians? Isn't the import of "collusion" working together to achieve benefits to both colluders?
Further, doesn't it appear that Steele did more to harm the Trump campaign (and later the Trump Administration) than Clinton paid him for? Certainly Clinton didn't pay Steele to "cooperate" with the FBI. And yet he did so and seems to have continued to do that after he had completed his contract for Clinton. Indeed, through Fusion he continued to provide information to the FBI even after the FBI "fired" him. Was Clinton paying him for these services?
Meade, you couldn't have done that chronologically: Read My Lips I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman And If You Like Your Doctor Then You Can Keep Your Weapons Of Mass Destruction?
At least it was book ended with a Bush and neither form didn't include "I'm in No Ways Tired".
Oh, on topic; the meeting was amateurish in planning, but massively poorly played by FusionGPS in execution, such that any real crime was avoided. It is not illegal to talk to Russians, at least not until Mueller tries to claim it is. And that's the thing, no matter how amateurish the Trump's are; the Mueller team looks far from anything I'd call professional.
And of all of this is boring, because it is all talk on both sides. One day someone that likes D as a suffix will have their home raided; and then it will get exciting.
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
I find it amusing that Michael K can't even spell his insults correctly.
Hey, I'll give you a recommendation for a second grade teacher job.
It seems that is your level, aside from Field Marshall of course.
“52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:
Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;
Making any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district, or local political party (including donations to a party nonfederal account or office building account);
Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication;...”
Let’s look a bit at Christopher Steele. Foreign national? Yes. Contribution or donation of something of value in connection with any federal election? How about his Dossier? The purpose there was obviously to affect a federal election. Also, his giving the Dossier to multiple media organizations, with the intent that it be published is fairly obviously a contribution of something of value to affect an election. And, that also very likely qualifies as an electioneering communications.
Now, let’s look at Trump, Jr, Kushner, etc, meeting with the Russian attorney. What, precisely, did she contribute to the Trump campaign? The answer is obviously nothing of value. Maybe they were looking to see what she could provide them in terms of dirt on Crooked Hillary. But so what? She never offered them such. There was no meeting of the minds, which means no collusion or illegal conspiracy. And realistically not even a solicitation by the Trump team to her for the dirt (that she didn’t have, and wasn’t there to provide). Zip. Zero. Nada.
it all circles around to our neutered and useless Jeff Sessions.
Hilary should be indicted. Period.
Freder, you should maybe read Donna Brazille’s book before defending the Clinton’s any further.
Anybody who wonders what the motivation would have been for an insider leak of the DNC emails need look no further than the pages of her book. Still we are fed an improbable story of Russian hacking when all of the evidence points to an insider leak, and we have a person who was in a position to do such a leak murdered on the streets of DC. A murder that remains unsolved. Whatever we do, don’t investigate that! Don’t look at what the security cameras and key card. records showed regarding who was in the building and where at the time of the leak! If it was a leak, Democrats know exactly who downloaded that file, and to what computer.
Bruce, Hillary had shell corporations so it’s all cool! I would read a book from the Clintons called “Corrupt Practices and How to Hide Them.”
The FBI didn’t even need to look at the DNC server to blame the Russians for the “hack” since their main goal was to pin it on Trump, meanwhile covering up the fact that the emails showed that the media worked with the Democrats hand in glove to push their agenda.
What if a foreign national, (cough cough Carlos Slim) owned a newspaper that endorsed a candidate? Is that a “thing of value”?
You have to be spectacularly stupid (a bar often crossed by our elite political class) to do something uniquely dumb. Say like maybe having a private unsecure server to handle classified information? Or appointing Jean Fraud Kerry as Secretary of State---well, Obama had history on his side. Kerry couldn't be any worse a pick than Hillary Clinton.
Bruce Hayden said...
Let’s look a bit at Christopher Steele. Foreign national? Yes. Contribution or donation of something of value in connection with any federal election? How about his Dossier?
Not a contribution, because he was paid. And he was not hired by Hillary or her campaign, he was hired by Fusion GPS, a U.S. company, which was hired by the Hillary Campaign ( through the campaign's lawyers. ) Either of those facts are enough to avoid the campaign finance laws.
From a moral/ethical perspective, it is no different from what Trump's campaign did. From a legal perspective, it is different. Which is not to say that the Trump Tower meeting violated the law. It did not, because the information solicited ( if you can call it that ) does not meet the working definition of thing of value in the campaign finance law.
"Nellie Ohr is also ex-CIA..."
And a ham radio enthusiast.
"Either of those facts are enough to avoid the campaign finance laws."
"independent expenditure"
Either of those facts are enough to avoid the campaign finance laws.
If only they hadn’t reported it as “legal expenses.” But hey, no scheme is perfect! They got Al Capone on tax evasion.
Crimso said...
"independent expenditure"
By whom, for what?
Real American at 1:03 AM
"connected to the Russian government" is weasel phrase the media uses because it doesn't want to inform its audience that the Russians involved in this meeting were NOT ACTUAL GOVERNMENT AGENTS and by all accounts were not sent there by the Russian government.
This is a very important understanding in this controversy.
It is not a fact that every Russian in this story is associated significantly with the Russian Government or, in particular, with Vladimir Putin.
Such associations cannot be presumed; they must be proved.
Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller currently is prosecuting a Russian company called Concord Management. The defendant company is essentially a food-service company that caters banquets, supplies food to institutions, and so forth.
The Russian man who established that company found that his company was being criticized on the Internet. Therefore he established another, independent company (Internet Research Agency) that mainly sells its services to other companies that want to reply to such criticisms on the Internet. The second company is the company that sets up various Facebook pages.
Mueller indicted both those Russian companies, and the first company -- the food-catering company -- showed up to defend itself in court.
Mueller is trying to create an impression in the American public that both these companies operate significantly on behalf of the Russian Intelligence Service. It's all absurd.
Unfortunately, our CIA is delusionally self-captivated by this absurdity.
They should put this “any thing of value” argument in the dictionary as an example of motivated thinking.
tim in vermont said...
If only they hadn’t reported it as “legal expenses.”
That is a campaign finance violation, the sort that is resolved by amending a return and maybe paying a small fine.
The simple fact is that Trump Jr, although naive to take that meeting, got NOTHING from the Russian.
Hillary is a much sophisticated criminal.
tim in vermont: "They should put this “any thing of value” argument in the dictionary as an example of motivated thinking"
It depends on what the meaning of "is" is....
Didn’t the “Russian Agent” meet with Fusion GPS both just before and just after the meeting at Trump Tower? Why yes she did. And the Fusion guy’s excuse was that he “didn’t speak Russian so couldn’t talk to her.” I wonder how she worked with them as a client when she was unable to communicate? Assuming she never spoke to him, she could still have dropped off anything, like a flash drive with a recording, or whatever.
One thing that surprised me was that they didn't stop the meeting sooner. Kushner bailed but the others sat there, what 20 minutes?
Who is in charge of the meeting? Trump Jr. Kushner is the ONLY one in that room that can bail on Don Jr. without risking a pecking order wrath. If Ivanka was in the room she could have left early too.
Everybody else sat on their hands until Trump Jr. ended the meeting.
Following up my comment at 2:44 AM
More information is at:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/02/mueller-indictement-the-russian-influence-is-a-commercial-marketing-scheme.html
How did Veselnitskaya get into the US in the first place? [I know how she did]
That is a campaign finance violation, the sort that is resolved by amending a return and maybe paying a small fine.
Even if it covers up a lot of other malfeasance that comes to light? Even if it served to cover up nefarious dealings with a hostile power? Isn’t that the issue here?
But ask Dinesh D’Souza about amending returns and paying small fines. It only works when you have a ‘D’ after your name.
We are dealing with an FEC that found time to silence a movie that criticized Hillary and to imprison a writer for National Review on a small potatoes first offense.
"By whom, for what?"
Steele, spending any money for the dossier, for Clinton. Acting independently. Steele would seem to have violated this law. If he did it on behalf of Clinton (and you can be acting on someone's behalf but still be doing so "independently"), is she not culpable if she accepts the benefits of the crime? Is it not at least conspiracy?
I no longer read, reply or comment on Trumpit's posts, as it is obvious he is a Russian operative.
Crimso said...
Steele, spending any money for the dossier, for Clinton. Acting independently. Steele would seem to have violated this law.
Steele was doing work-for-hire. That is not a contribution. If he continued unpaid after contract was up, that would be an independent expenditure. But that would not be a violation by Hillary, unless she received something of value. ( I'm assuming the dossier was part of the paid-for work ) Any work that he did, that he turned over to the FBI rather than the Clinton campaign, would not be considered a contribution to her campaign.
"Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;"
Seems to distinguish between "contributions" and "expenditures" (independent or otherwise). IANAL, so bear with me. I understand that in the law plain language doesn't always mean what it says. Is there a separate section wherein it excepts work-for-hire? It seems to say that if you hire a foreign national, they can't make any expenditures as part of their employment.
Blah, blah, blah. The day of full disclosure of crimes by the Clintons and the Kenyan and their mass arrests cometh.
Trump is not perfect, but he is on our side. And the corruption and Treason by the Clintons and Obama is so massive that few will believe the disclosures coming.
So what if there was dirt provided on Clinton involving serious illegality that would make her supremely disqualified for the office of President? Wouldn't getting and exposing that in the campaign be a great public service by the Trump campaign?
We already know the answer becuase that's exactly what happened. Not from this meeting, but from widely known information including the FBI's investigation and Comey's testimony to congress. It did not matter. The truth is that Clinton also could have shot someone on 5th avenue without losing a vote. What? You gonna vote for Trump instead?
"If he continued unpaid after contract was up, that would be an independent expenditure. But that would not be a violation by Hillary, unless she received something of value"
Of course, we can all split hairs. Which isl irrelevant, since Steele worked for Hill, so nothing will happen. Witch hunts only go one way in the US of A, whether in DC or Wisconsin or Austin.
But as long as we are splitting hairs, Steele did at least some things, involving some "expenditures," for which he was not paid, for example, planting stories in the MSM, which was "something of value," of great value to Hill's campaign.
Freder cites a law that prohibits a foreign national from donating anything of value to a US presidential campaign. How does that law support an indictment or conviction of a US national from accepting same? If this is the only statute the Left is relying on, its facially not applicable. (Presumably, that is why Diane Feinstein was allowed to give back the $12000 to a Chinese banker--just to take an example recently in the news when the illegal donation was discovered in 1997 and she was not prosecuted).
Now, even if there were a campaign finance law that made it a crime for a US citizen to accept such a donation, I highly doubt that mere information (whether in the Steele Dossier or from the DNC server) would be constitutionally punishable, under the First Amendment.
Crimso: "How did Veselnitskaya get into the US in the first place? [I know how she did]"
Special State Dept/FBI waiver from the obama admin.
So she was able to prance right into the US, with an escort.
And whaddya know, she had time to meet with her old pal and colleague, Glenn Simpson of FusionGPS....both right before AND right after her Trump Tower meeting!
Wow. That sure is one interesting set of coincidences......
"Special State Dept/FBI waiver from the obama admin."
After being denied an entry visa via normal channels, to boot.
But nothing to see here involving HRC or 44. I thought somebody was pissing on my head. Guess it's only raining.
robother said...
Now, even if there were a campaign finance law that made it a crime for a US citizen to accept such a donation,...
There is. The same law that prohibits the foreign national from making the contribution prohibits also prohibits campaigns from accepting, receiving, or soliciting such contributions.
...I highly doubt that mere information (whether in the Steele Dossier or from the DNC server) would be constitutionally punishable, under the First Amendment.
In general, information is not mentioned in the guidelines for what constitutes a contribution. However, a category that is mentioned is information that is generated professionally for the campaign. For example, if a polling firm does a poll and gives the results to a campaign, that is a contribution. Likewise, opposition research given to a campaign ( not paid research, as with Hillary paying Fusion GPS ) is a contribution.
So, if the info offered to the Trump campaign was information gathered by the Russian intelligence service, that would likely be a campaign contribution, and thus illegal ( if the information was actually given. ) But that was not the case. The offer was for information regarding Hillary's dealing with the Russian government itself, so ( if the information was actually given ) this would be a case of passing along first-hand knowledge, not professionally gathered information. So not opposition research.
Crimso said...
Seems to distinguish between "contributions" and "expenditures" (independent or otherwise). IANAL, so bear with me. I understand that in the law plain language doesn't always mean what it says. Is there a separate section wherein it excepts work-for-hire? It seems to say that if you hire a foreign national, they can't make any expenditures as part of their employment.
Not a lawyer either, but I'm pretty sure that spending money to conduct your business is not an expenditure for the campaign, even if they are the ones buying your services. Note that this same language applies to reporting requirements and contribution limits for contributions from legal sources. But a printing company that is paid to print campaign signs is not also making a campaign expenditure when they spend money on paper and ink.
Ray at 12:38... Yes, and Susan Rice's husband is George Stephanopoulis's ABC prrogram's producer. Small world eh?
Hey folks, narciso's link to wordpress has it all. Lengthy, articulate and compelling. You'll understand better. You may not sleep well afterward, but you will have insight.
Hey folks, narciso's link to wordpress has it all. Lengthy, articulate and compelling. You'll understand better. You may not sleep well afterward, but you will have insight.
YES !!!!
https://apelbaum.wordpress.com/2018/03/17/the-mechanics-of-deception/
Ignorance is Bliss says (3:04 pm) that if Steele "continued unpaid after contract [with Hillary/DNC] was up, that would be an independent expenditure. But that would not be a violation by Hillary, unless she received something of value." So, by the same token, even if Madame V had dirt on Hillary and the Trumpsters told her they wouldn't pay for it, but told her she could take it to the media as a public service, that wouldn't have been an election law violation by the Trump campaign, correct?
The point being that I think we're all agreed that the meeting itself wasn't an election law violation. The meeting wouldn't necessarily have led to a violation even if she had dirt on Hillary; it depended on what the Trumpies did or said. So the Trumpies weren't stupid (because they weren't savvy about election laws) for taking the meeting, but because they weren't savvy about how anti-Trump media can spin any innocent action into a scandal, nicht wahr?
Narciso has background and is assiduous in finding and compiling relevant material.
Especially "connections". This mess connects to every damned thing going back decades.
Pay attention to what he posts.
The Godfather said... The point being that I think we're all agreed that the meeting itself wasn't an election law violation. The meeting wouldn't necessarily have led to a violation even if she had dirt on Hillary; it depended on what the Trumpies did or said. So the Trumpies weren't stupid (because they weren't savvy about election laws) for taking the meeting, but because they weren't savvy about how anti-Trump media can spin any innocent action into a scandal, nicht wahr?
***************************
Well, not talking to foreigners about getting dirt on political opponents didn't stop the detestable Adam Schiff from doing that with some Ukrainians who lied about having photos of a naked Trump with hookers. Schiff even used the Russki intelligence term "compromat", indicating at least a passing acquaintance with such dirty tricks.
No one's going after Schiff. Yet he did the same thing.
nicht wahr?
robother incorrectly states:Presumably, that is why Diane Feinstein was allowed to give back the $12000 to a Chinese banker--just to take an example recently in the news when the illegal donation was discovered in 1997 and she was not prosecuted).
*NO*
Diane Feinstein was not prosecuted because there is NO LAW against a Democrat doing ANYTHING
Diane Feinstein is NOT a Republican: LAWS do NOT apply to her any more than they do to Hilary or O'Bama . The living Constitution is quite explicit on this.
Freder cites a law that prohibits a foreign national from donating anything of value to a US presidential campaign.
It seems pretty clear that Veselnitskaya offered nothing of value. And the Trump team offered nothing of value in return for her nothing.
The apelbaum document analysis makes the rather obvious implication that Fusion GPS and Orbis Business Intelligence (Steele's London operation) are not exactly independent commercial enterprises, but are rather deniable assets of some intelligence agency.
Narciso's link hows multiple connections between Fusion GPS, Democrat Party players and others engaged in a conspiracy to derail Trump's election. Failing that, they need to derail his presidency to protect their interests and cover up their actions.
I am not normally fond of conspiracy theories because they require too many players and many convenient coincidences. In this case, the coincidences argue in favor of conspiracy. As to the many players, there are organizers and their credulous followers who likely think they are doing the right thing.
The credulous followers are readily in evidence here. You have the useful idiots, the true believers and the GOPe. I am sure most of you can attach names to these descriptions. I will not do so now because it only gives them a platform to distract.
We are witnessing an attempt to derail a duly elected POTUS. Impeachment is boob bait. The conspirators do not want impeachment because it would bring too much attention to their actions. An informed citizenry is the best way to combat this threat to democracy.
An informed citizenry is the best way to combat this threat to democracy.
We're doomed.
"I am not normally fond of conspiracy theories because they require too many players and many convenient coincidences"
There are too many convenient coincidences. That's the problem.
I doubt they had or have impeachment, as such, in mind, or not as an effective policy.
The method post 11/2016 was both more obvious and more subtle.
Note what John Kerry told Abbas - Jerusalem Post, 1/24/2018
"According to Kerry, Trump will not remain in office for a long time. It was reported that Kerry said that within a year there was a good chance that Trump would not be in the White House."
I suspect the overwhelming institutional and MSM pressure was intended to shut down the administration (such as denying it the ability to staff itself by dissuading appointees), and force a resignation.
Yes, and Susan Rice's husband is George Stephanopoulis's ABC prrogram's producer. Small world eh?
And her son is president of the Stanford college Republicans.
Maybe he knows something we don't?
I suspect one of the Russian party was wired. There’s probably a tape, if it hasn’t already been destroyed to avoid a conspiracy charge, of the meeting. Somebody, maybe Manafort, knew not to ask about anything related to Clinton. If they were going to offer it, it needed to be freely offered. They talked about the Maginsky act until it became clear Team Trump was not going to solicit or offer to pay for information. Anybody with a lick of sense understands the Russians wanted HRC to win. The email information released were just brush back pitches to remind her they still have those 33K emails that haven’t been seen.
"The email information released were just brush back pitches to remind her they still have those 33K emails that haven’t been seen."
Every foreign service that matters has those emails.
Interesting web site, I emailed the link to my FBI agent daughter,
They were all interrelated, as I suggested a day or so ago.
Members of the Deep State given a specific mission.
The "Walsingham" thing was cute., He was Elizabeth I's spy chief who trapped Mary Queen of Scots,
So Steele gathering opo overseas = Russians breaking our laws (though, apparently only the "fake laws," i.e. cyber espionage).
Logic is tricky!
"Maybe he knows something we don't?"
He does. A lot.
"According to Kerry, Trump will not remain in office for a long time. It was reported that Kerry said that within a year there was a good chance that Trump would not be in the White House."
This is not evidence of a conspiracy. It is evidence of banality.
Blogger anti-de Sitter space said...
"Maybe he knows something we don't?"
He does. A lot.
I guess you agree that's why he is a Republican.
Thanks peanut,.
Doc Mike,
I'm a LifeLong Republican (as they say). I've always voted in every race. All R except two D boxes checked (same person, two elections (three elections if you include voting against HRC in 2008 primary)), and one independent (i.e. voting against DJT).
BTW, I have a MAGA hat x-mas ornement because of you: I think you were the one who mentioned it in one of these threads.
Or, were you my tip for the HRC-for-prison bobblehead that I bought?
Maybe it was others fer both. I dunno.
But,
To your point, I was agreeing that with you when you stated that you and others here don't know much.
"This is not evidence of a conspiracy. It is evidence of banality."
This was advice given by a US ex-Secretary of State to a senior official of a quasi-nation encouraging said foreigner to oppose current US foreign policy. That is, he was attempting to reduce the probability of success of US foreign policy. This is close to treason in any traditional sense (whatever US law says).
Kerry has travelling about meeting various foreign officials (The Iranians, French, Germans, EU characters, Palestinians, and who knows who else), and I suspect something along these lines is what he has been telling all of them.
Including the bit about the imminent removal of Trump. This bit itself would have been treason in less obfuscating times.
They are, the lot of them, in cahoots.
"I was agreeing that with you when you stated that you and others here don't know much."
I agree. It is all smoke and fog these days. Or rather, that smoke and fog does not hide so well anymore, in that it is more visible, if not that which its covering. The obscuring cover is more apparent.
If you have fog-lamps, then give.
Thanks I found on Stephen McIntyre feed.
So he's saying the Clinton's did it the correct way? Trump is thus guilty of being amateurish in the whole corruption / collusion game? Thanks, got it.
-sw
Or, were you my tip for the HRC-for-prison bobblehead that I bought?
No but I have the tee shirt, Someday I'll wear it around the U of A here in Tucson.
Pandemonium, I expect. Uof A is as leftist as Berkeley.
"52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:
Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;...
Curious, what dollar value do you put on information that damages Hillary's reputation? And in what court of law would that be prosecuted?
OK Doc Mike,
I'm assuming that you're confirming that I did hear about my MAGA hat ornament from you. Someone in these threads mentioned possibly buying one for some sorta gift exchange. When hearing such a thing existed, I went and ordered my own.
BTW, it actually fits on the HRC-for-prison bobblehead. Cool!
But, I hide both. I'm worried about the staff. They all seem like they'd never ever be resentful. But, lotsa folks seem lotsa ways: not reliable.
“Steele was doing work-for-hire. That is not a contribution. If he continued unpaid after contract was up, that would be an independent expenditure. But that would not be a violation by Hillary, unless she received something of value. ( I'm assuming the dossier was part of the paid-for work ) Any work that he did, that he turned over to the FBI rather than the Clinton campaign, would not be considered a contribution to her campaign.”
Of course she was receiving something of value. If Steele’s taking his Dossier to the press, who ultimately published parts or all of it affected even one vote in her favor (or kept one Trump voter Home), she received something of value. It pretty much has to be that way, or foreigners would be able to legally impact our elections by just acting separately from the candidates they were helping. And as for the “work for hire”, how does anyone know what the value of the work was? Obviously, you can’t depend on the price paid, because there is a natural inclination to fudge that one way or another. Maybe, if they can show an arm’s length transaction, but that clearly wasn’t the case here, esp given how incestuously Fusion GPS is tied to the Dem power brokers. And, if it can be shown that the value of the services provided exceeded the price paid for them, then you have a net benefit to the Crooked Hillary campaign.
And, if it can be shown that the value of the services provided exceeded the price paid for them, then you have a net benefit to the Crooked Hillary campaign.
I tend to agree with buwaya here that this was an operation by an agency that we have not yet learned the identity of.
Maybe it is just billionaires that want open borders and unfair trade.
Maybe it is China.
I'm assuming that you're confirming that I did hear about my MAGA hat ornament from you.
It could be but I don't have one. I did send one to my brother-in-law who is a retired Chicago cop.
He loved it.
"He loved it."
It's fine. But, I was surprised by how thin the metal is. Sure, I knew about Trump U and all the other film-flam businesses. But, I'ts not much more than tinfoil. Very thin. Of course I expected the gold plating to be extremely thin. But, the underlying metal is also very thin.
Anywho, I'd like to defend myself w/ the -- “There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.” -- thingy. But, I did also send money to that support-the-troops-thingy that DJT did instead of one of the R debates. OTOH, eventually he donated the money, after the evil Wapo published that he'd kept it all. So, I guess I wasn't fooled.
Anywho, I still get lots of DJT asks for dough. Which the staff sees. F me.
In trevanians (new whittaker) shibumi, they have all off us intelligence under a,corporate front called the mother company (It was a slight wag to Janis joplin) it operates using massive data bases, among their first designated target is Munich 5, a fictionalized version of the black September hunters.
I swear...the brain-inflamed progs will argue that a blank sheet of paper passed between the parties is something of "value", ERGO a crime has been committed.
Lame. So lame.
Anywho, I still get lots of DJT asks for dough. Which the staff sees. F me.
Peanut, you may fool yourself but you don't fool me.
I doubt you even fool yourself. You think this is humor.
Doc Mike,
Don't you get lots of DJT (snail) mail asking for dough?
I can't go a week w/o one. (Some supposedly, (including a 8.5x11 glossy: hot!), are from Melania).
I did drop big dough for the thing for vets, but that wasn't (supposed to be) a DJT campaign contribution. Other than that, the x-mas hat ornament was only a hundred bucks, or so. The HRC for prison bobblehead was third-party.
IOW, I'm not a big DJT campaign contributor.
Maybe, his folks got my info from other Rs that I fund.
I dunno.
P.S.
If you think I'm disappointed when you misjudge......
Carry on.
Doc Mike,
Your never-ending misjudgments are probably the best thing re these threads.
The best thing about someone who's been a big fish in a small pond is that they're really funny to big fish.
I don't know if it is FAKE law, but I do not like the precedents made by Mueller, those made by Sessions, those abuses done by the FBI, nor what various Judges are allowing to happen in their pursuit of Trump.
See, I have to live in this country AFTER Trump and you guys seem intent on cutting down every Tree of Law just to get to 'The Devil'.
Well, fuck you. We know how that ends!
So I will fight for Trump, not for Trump, but to safeguard the laws you imbeciles want to cut down.
Post a Comment