Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2018 American Political Scene

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
    It sure can.
    Please feel free to elaborate. How does one solicit info that was already offered for free?

    Comment


    • They set up a meeting at Trump Tower on their own initiative in an attempt to get the information. In other words, solicitation.
      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
        In other words, solicitation.
        The perfect word to describe this Administration.
        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
          So is this memo (a) the second coming of the Pentagon Papers or (b) the opening of Al Capone's grave by Geraldo?
          Things About Carter Page or How I Learned to Accidentally Confirm the Basis for the Mueller Investigation would be an apt title.
          Last edited by Ironduke; 03 Feb 18,, 03:34.
          "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
            They set up a meeting at Trump Tower on their own initiative in an attempt to get the information. In other words, solicitation.
            So arranging a meeting to accept something that was already freely offered, without prior request, is solicitation, according to you?

            Here, let me help you...

            solicitation - Legal Definition
            image: http://cf.ydcdn.net/latest/images/dictionaries/law.jpg
            n
            A request or petition intended to obtain something; criminally urging, advising, or ordering someone to commit a crime; offering to pay for sex or requesting money in exchange for sex; an attempt to increase the number of one’s actual or potential clientele.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
              So arranging a meeting to accept something that was already freely offered, without prior request, is solicitation, according to you?
              According to the law. Keep spinning.

              If I get an email from someone telling me that some foreigner has three suitcases full of cash for my political campaign, I say 'I love it!", and proceed to invite them into my Senate office, there's no ass covering there.
              Last edited by Ironduke; 03 Feb 18,, 03:36.
              "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                According to the law. Keep spinning.

                If I get an email from someone telling me that some foreigner has three suitcases full of cash for my political campaign, I say 'I love it!", and proceed to invite them into my Senate office, there's no ass covering there.
                Please be specific.. what spin exactly?

                First off, you're example doesn't clear anything up with regards to "solicitation". You clearly still don't understand what it means.

                Second, you conflate illegal CASH contributions from a foreign source (in your example, unsolicited) with freely offered, unsolicited information. Until a court of law rules that information offered freely to a campaign violates some campaign finance law, which is without precedent (so no, NOT according to law), it's all just wishful thinking from trump haters. Feel free to prove me wrong a cite the precedent court case for unsolicited information violating campaign finance laws. Maybe I'm wrong, but nobody making this argument has yet been able to do so.
                Last edited by Wooglin; 03 Feb 18,, 04:09.

                Comment


                • Legal beagle stuff here, but from Subchapter C, §300.2 of the BCRA:

                  (1) The following types of communications constitute solicitations:
                  (i) A communication that provides a method of making a contribution or donation, regardless of the communication.

                  A contribution is a thing of value. "Meet me at Trump Tower so I can get the dirt" would be the method.

                  Apparently, you think arranging a meet with a Russian government representative to get "high level and sensitive information" that "is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump" is on the up and up, nothing to see there, totally legit.
                  Last edited by Ironduke; 03 Feb 18,, 04:59.
                  "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                    Legal beagle stuff here, but from Subchapter C, §300.2 of the BCRA:

                    (1) The following types of communications constitute solicitations:
                    (i) A communication that provides a method of making a contribution or donation, regardless of the communication.

                    A contribution is a thing of value. "Meet me at Trump Tower so I can get the dirt" would be the method.

                    Apparently, you think arranging a meet with a Russian government representative to get "high level and sensitive information" that "is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump" is on the up and up, nothing to see there, totally legit.
                    "A contribution is a thing of value", therefore info to campaign is a contribution because it has value, blah blah blah.... This is an opinion, not supported by any law or case law precedent, else you would have posted it as I requested. I understand the need to try to turn this on me because it's a weak ass argument you can't really support (and probably why nobody has bothered trying to prosecute on it?), but it's not about what I think is on the up and up or not. It's about what is and is not supported by actual law and not making shit up as we go for political reasons, which is what this is really about.

                    Comment


                    • The reason there is no precedent in case law is because this is a unique case almost without precedent. When Nixon did it, the law didn't exist. Nobody has tried to prosecute the offense, because, duh, there haven't been any cases to prosecute. Just because nobody's been dumb and corrupt enough to seek to collaborate and collude with the agent of a hostile foreign government to affect the outcome of a federal election (which Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner were seeking to do) since the law has been on the books, doesn't place their activities outside the scope of the statute.

                      The more important point is that Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner sought to collaborate and collude with the agent of a hostile foreign government to affect the outcome of a federal election.

                      It's open to speculation at this point which laws may or may not have been broken, but it is quite clear that they are all in legal jeopardy as a result of their actions that day.
                      Last edited by Ironduke; 03 Feb 18,, 06:19.
                      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                      Comment


                      • https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-...ibution-types/

                        Types of contributions
                        Contributions are the most common source of campaign support.

                        A contribution is anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election. It is important to understand which receipts are considered contributions because:

                        Contributions count toward the threshold that determines whether an individual has qualified as a candidate under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act).
                        Contributions are subject to the Act’s prohibitions against contributions from certain sources.
                        Contributions are subject to the Act’s limits on the amount of contributions.
                        Like all receipts, contributions are also subject to the Act’s recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

                        Money
                        A contribution of money may be made by check, cash (currency), credit card or other written instrument.

                        Goods and services (in-kind contributions)
                        Goods or services offered free or at less than the usual charge result in an in-kind contribution. Similarly, when a person pays for services on the committee’s behalf, the payment is an in-kind contribution. An expenditure made by any person in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate.

                        Goods (such as facilities, equipment, supplies or mailing lists) are valued at the price the item or facility would cost if purchased or rented at the time the contribution is made. For example, if someone donates a personal computer to the campaign, the contribution equals the ordinary market price of the computer at the time of the contribution. Services (such as advertising, printing or consultant services) are valued at the prevailing commercial rate at the time the services are rendered.

                        The contributor needs to notify the recipient candidate committee of the value of an in-kind contribution. The recipient needs this information in order to monitor the contributor’s aggregate contributions and to report the correct amount.

                        Under limited exemptions in the law, persons may provide certain goods and services to a committee without making contributions. For example, when services are volunteered—not paid for by anyone—the activity is not considered a contribution.
                        Let's review that again...

                        Under limited exemptions in the law, persons may provide certain goods and services to a committee without making contributions. For example, when services are volunteered—not paid for by anyone—the activity is not considered a contribution
                        Well golly gee, perhaps that's why there's no legal precedent for it?

                        Comment


                        • Under limited exemptions in the law, persons may provide certain goods and services to a committee without making contributions. For example, when services are volunteered—not paid for by anyone—the activity is not considered a contribution
                          A person is a volunteer as long as they're not compensated by anyone else. In this case, the people meeting with Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner were agents of the Russian government, and were compensated by the Russian government.
                          "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                            The reason there is no precedent in case law is because this is a unique case almost without precedent. When Nixon did it, the law didn't exist. Nobody has tried to prosecute the offense, because, duh, there haven't been any cases to prosecute. Just because nobody's been dumb and corrupt enough to seek to collaborate and collude with the agent of a hostile foreign government to affect the outcome of a federal election (which Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner were seeking to do) since the law has been on the books, doesn't place their activities outside the scope of the statute.

                            The more important point is that Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner sought to collaborate and collude with the agent of a hostile foreign government to affect the outcome of a federal election.

                            It's open to speculation at this point which laws may or may not have been broken, but it is quite clear that they are all in legal jeopardy as a result of their actions that day.
                            Well the law prohibits contributions from ANY foreign entity, so I assume you must also be pushing for the HRC campaign to be prosecuted under the very same law? In this case it was actually solicited and paid for.

                            If it's open to speculation which law they broke then how is it clear they are in legal jeopardy? If at some point they clearly violated some law then they should be prosecuted for such. What I don't care for is trying to stretch the interpretation of existing laws to prosecute political opponents. That's the danger and will come back to bite us in the ass.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                              A person is a volunteer as long as they're not compensated by anyone else. In this case, the people meeting with Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner were agents of the Russian government, and were compensated by the Russian government.
                              Sorry, that doesn't wash either unless you can prove the Russian government paid them ON BEHALF OF the Trump campaign. Good luck with that. And wasn't one of them being paid by Fusion GPS? How does that figure into your prosecutions?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                                A person is a volunteer as long as they're not compensated by anyone else. In this case, the people meeting with Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner were agents of the Russian government, and were compensated by the Russian government.
                                I'm sorry but what? So a volunteer working for a political campaign is an agent of some other entity if that volunteer goes to do his/her day job to put food on the table, pay the electric bill, rent/mortgage, etc?
                                Chimo

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X