Director Comey fired

[JAD_333]

JAD,



it takes a pretty incredible combination of lack of ethics and stupidity to do this. if nothing else, this demonstrated his -willingness- to collude.

and not just Jr alone, but Kushner and Manafort.

Asty

What do we mean by collude?

I think Manafort must be on Trump Sr's sh*t list. He should have rung alarms from the gitgo to keep junior out of trouble down the line. If it's me running the campaign--I worked in a few you know (not Trump's)--I would have laid down a paper trail nixing it. I've never seen a worse case of obliviousness on the part of a campaign manager to the cardinal rule in public life that appearances count more than reality. It might have been the most innocent meeting on the planet that day, but it could only come out smelling bad once the media and the opposition get wind of it.

[JAD_333]

...I'm just pointing out it is evidence that Junior thought Russia was trying to help, as did the two senior campaign officials (one how a senior White House figure) who went with him.

I was pointing out a viable alternative reading of facts to your own version. I'm not claiming its true, but it is at least as likely. Whether or not the meeting suggests collusion was underway, I think it does suggest a comfort in highly questionable dealings with the Russian government.

The point of my original post is that this new information further erodes claims that all the contacts with people connected to the Russian government were completely innocent. The 'nothing to see here' attitude simply isn't supported by the facts any more. There may not be evidence of a crime, but you know better than most that criminal behaviour is only one of the issues here. The idea that senior members of a Presidential campaign would do this is virtually beyond belief....and we haven't seen all the info Mueller has yet.

Looks like we got everything cleared up. :) Off to the pub for the next round.

[DOR]

What laws might have been violated?

How about conspiracy to violate Federal election laws?

Federal campaign finance law covers three broad subjects:

• Public disclosure of funds raised and spent to influence federal elections;

• Restrictions on contributions and expenditures made to influence federal elections; and

• The public financing of Presidential campaigns.

…

Prohibited Contributions and Expenditures
The FECA places prohibitions on contributions and expenditures by certain individuals and organizations. The following are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures to influence federal elections:
• Corporations;
• Labor organizations;
• Federal government contractors; and
• Foreign nationals.


Furthermore, with respect to federal elections:

•No one may make a contribution in another person’s name.

• No one may make a contribution in cash of more than $100.

In addition to the above prohibitions on contributions and expenditures in federal election campaigns, the FECA also prohibits foreign nationals, national banks and other federally chartered corporations from making contributions or expenditures in connection with state and local elections.

https://transition.fec.gov/pages/bro...a_brochure.pdf


Then there’s this:
The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.
https://transition.fec.gov/pages/bro.../foreign.shtml


And,

The Act prohibits certain contributions made in connection with or for the purpose of influencing federal elections. The prohibitions listed below apply to contributions received and made by political committees. Note that the prohibitions apply to all contributions, regardless of:
• What type of contribution it is (gift of money, in-kind contribution, loan and so on);
• Whether it is solicited; and
• How it is ultimately used (such as for advertising, office supplies or independent expenditures).

…

Contributions and donations may not be solicited, accepted, or received from, or made directly or indirectly by, foreign nationals who do not have permanent residence in the United States (i.e., those without green cards). This prohibition encompasses all US elections; including federal, state and local elections.
https://transition.fec.gov/pages/bro.../contrib.shtml


Bottom line: if anyone in a federal election campaign has contact with foreigners interested in assisting the campaign, the first response should be to call the FBI.

Not to say "I love it."

[Bigfella]

Looks like we got everything cleared up. :) Off to the pub for the next round.

First drinks are on me. :-)

[bfng3569]

Where have I heard that before?

you hear that one a lot huh?

you keep making all these wild ludicrous conspiracy theory claims as fact, but you cant (or wont) prove a single one.

[snapper]

you hear that one a lot huh?

you keep making all these wild ludicrous conspiracy theory claims as fact, but you cant (or wont) prove a single one.

Yea Lavrov normally.

[DOR]

you hear that one a lot huh?

you keep making all these wild ludicrous conspiracy theory claims as fact, but you cant (or wont) prove a single one.

In case you missed it, ...

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.

https://transition.fec.gov/pages/bro.../foreign.shtml

[Wooglin]

In case you missed it, ...

https://transition.fec.gov/pages/bro.../foreign.shtml

Third time posting it yet still waiting for how exactly this applies. You seem to keep forgetting that part.

[snapper]

Third time posting it yet still waiting for how exactly this applies. You seem to keep forgetting that part.

Manafort, Kushner of small Trump could answer that... what was in the file that Natalia Veselnitskaya gave them? Do you suppose it blank pages? Maybe it was just a brown envelope - maybe information but when you ask for repeal of a law as apparently they were asking for you have to give something in return; the art of the deal remember?

[astralis]

JAD,

I think Manafort must be on Trump Sr's sh*t list.

well, yes.

but frankly, given the situation, why pin it all on Manafort? both Trump Jr and Kushner are businessmen, supposedly. neither are they college kids or something. (Kushner is pretty much Shadow Secretary of State now, having undercut Tillerson and even Mattis repeatedly.) i'm pretty damned sure they know the value of optics...and that's assuming the most benign take on the whole deal.

as you said, they should be thanking their lucky stars that Rob Goldstone oversold the meeting and that the Russians didn't actually provide material (well, at least that we know of yet), because THEN the situation for all of them would be even dicier.

[zraver]

In case you missed it, ...

https://transition.fec.gov/pages/bro.../foreign.shtml

You keep mistaking information with contributions. The FEC very clearly defines contributions as funds. Information is a personal service, it doesn't even have a value unless paid for.

https://transition.fec.gov/pages/bro...ml#Nonelection

[tbm3fan]

I see the Donald is at it again today laying all kinds of blame on Sessions now. Then throwing more blame and threats around at everybody else who happens to be associated with all this. Obviously he doesn't believe in the buck stops here at all. Although he once said being an entrepreneur, like him, means you are responsible for all your decisions. Oops, I guess that was another white lie. The piece de resistance in all this is that he gave the interview to the NYT. The same NYT that he bashes every chance he can get regarding their fake news about him. I love it you just can't make up stuff this good. Four years down the tubes...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/u...ns-russia.html

[tbm3fan]

You keep mistaking information with contributions. The FEC very clearly defines contributions as funds. Information is a personal service, it doesn't even have a value unless paid for.

https://transition.fec.gov/pages/bro...ml#Nonelection

Keep working at it and one day you'll get it right.

[DOR]

Is it really that difficult?

Wooglin,

Third time posting it yet still waiting for how exactly this applies. You seem to keep forgetting that part.

Reading comprehension can be highly selective around here, particularly when it comes to protecting the reputation of a favorite icon. Hence, the repetition.


zraver,

You keep mistaking information with contributions. The FEC very clearly defines contributions as funds. Information is a personal service, it doesn't even have a value unless paid for.

And you, sir, continually fail to provide adequate documentation. One would expect that citing the relevant law applicable in this case would be useful information, but only if people will actually read it …

For example, your own citation says it is perfectly legal for foreigners to be politically active in the US provided it is unrelated to any election.

Which implies that you think the entire Russia-gate was only coincidentally undertaken at the height of an election cycle, and by members of The Trumpet’s immediate family and campaign professionals.

Which make you look a bit silly.

. . . . .

It isn't rocket science, folks:

• Opposition research is valuable.
• The FEC defines contributions to include both money and “in-kind.”
• Contributions – aside from strictly personal volunteering – from foreigners and their governments are illegal.
• Assisting foreigners to “solicit, receive or accept” contributions is illegal.
• Soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions from foreigners, directly or otherwise, is illegal.

[Wooglin]

Wooglin,



Reading comprehension can be highly selective around here, particularly when it comes to protecting the reputation of a favorite icon. Hence, the repetition.


zraver,



And you, sir, continually fail to provide adequate documentation. One would expect that citing the relevant law applicable in this case would be useful information, but only if people will actually read it …

For example, your own citation says it is perfectly legal for foreigners to be politically active in the US provided it is unrelated to any election.

Which implies that you think the entire Russia-gate was only coincidentally undertaken at the height of an election cycle, and by members of The Trumpet’s immediate family and campaign professionals.

Which make you look a bit silly.

. . . . .

It isn't rocket science, folks:

• Opposition research is valuable.
• The FEC defines contributions to include both money and “in-kind.”
• Contributions – aside from strictly personal volunteering – from foreigners and their governments are illegal.
• Assisting foreigners to “solicit, receive or accept” contributions is illegal.
• Soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions from foreigners, directly or otherwise, is illegal.

So like I said before you're trying to equate giving information with a 'contribution" to a campaign, which you wish to mean anything of "value" despite the law explicitly referring to cash or cash equivalent assets. Quite the stretch of the law, which may as well be rocket science to you. Let me know when they find someone dumb enough to try to prosecute on this. Takes a particularly big pair of balls to try to make this argument despite nothing in the law supporting it and then make snide comments about reading comprehension...