It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help me understand the Russian Collusion angle.

page: 7
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Lol, no... they don't only apply to Russia. I think Gramblers massively confused on some things. No offense to Grambler.




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: tadaman

I feel strongly that if we let them lie to us again while providing nothing but conjecture and "intelligence rumors" like was done with Iraq, that we will set back international relations by decades and bring the chance of war right back to the center of our world round table.



The 17 agencies came from only one mouth....Hillary's. It seems anything she says is taken as a true unquestionable fact on face value alone. Just like she started the whole birther movement by being the one person to state that Obama was not eligible.


We now know it was not only just 3 agencies, it was a hand picked team from within those 3 agencies that put together the silly document that proved nothing even close to what they claimed.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: shooterbrody



No not really. First please provide the proof that anything was given to the trump campaign at that meeting. I have seen none.


Did you happen to read section b?


(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.


It appears only a promise need to be made for it to be in violation and disbursements are not mention in that section.



Please show me the definition of "thing of value". It is not there.



Correct, it's not there. Here is a legal definition:


Anything of value refers to any goods that have a certain utility to the recipient that is real and that is ordinarily not given away free but is purchased.


definitions.uslegal.com...

Opposition research is not given away freely. It is purchased.



You are just blowing smoke.


I'm simply discussing the issue. The OP asked what laws may have been violated and I responded with what I have read legal scholars talking about on this issue. As I said, I don't know how much weight that holds or how it would play-out in the courts. This is unprecedented.

I know what I posted may not confirm your biases and it may hurt your feelings, but this is a potential issue that may come up in the future.


Wow, when you put it in that context, it seems the RNC and DNC folks who paid for the Steele Dosier are flat out guilty in that instance. I say hang them.


I'm not sure about that. FusionGPS is not a foreign agent. In the context of the work they did that was related to the Russian lawyer, they did not directly work for them. They were retained by a US law firm to do their work.

There is a very distinct and important degree of separation there which is why no one is claiming the DNC/RNC "colluded" with a foreign agent when hiring FusionGPS to do opposition research. Well, except the pro-Trump folks that seem to be desperate to catch the DNC is an equally perilous situation as Trump's team may be in.


wow, who's being a partisan douche now? I distinctly mentioned the RNC as well as the DNC, as they both paid for this information. Foreign entities were involved and unlike the Trump Jr. case, money was exchanged and dirt was given.

You can want to have it both ways, but it won't work. Never will.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: shooterbrody



No not really. First please provide the proof that anything was given to the trump campaign at that meeting. I have seen none.


Did you happen to read section b?


(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.


It appears only a promise need to be made for it to be in violation and disbursements are not mention in that section.



Please show me the definition of "thing of value". It is not there.



Correct, it's not there. Here is a legal definition:


Anything of value refers to any goods that have a certain utility to the recipient that is real and that is ordinarily not given away free but is purchased.


definitions.uslegal.com...

Opposition research is not given away freely. It is purchased.



You are just blowing smoke.


I'm simply discussing the issue. The OP asked what laws may have been violated and I responded with what I have read legal scholars talking about on this issue. As I said, I don't know how much weight that holds or how it would play-out in the courts. This is unprecedented.

I know what I posted may not confirm your biases and it may hurt your feelings, but this is a potential issue that may come up in the future.


Wow, when you put it in that context, it seems the RNC and DNC folks who paid for the Steele Dosier are flat out guilty in that instance. I say hang them.


I'm not sure about that. FusionGPS is not a foreign agent. In the context of the work they did that was related to the Russian lawyer, they did not directly work for them. They were retained by a US law firm to do their work.

There is a very distinct and important degree of separation there which is why no one is claiming the DNC/RNC "colluded" with a foreign agent when hiring FusionGPS to do opposition research. Well, except the pro-Trump folks that seem to be desperate to catch the DNC is an equally perilous situation as Trump's team may be in.


Show me proof Vesilnyskya was working for the Kremlin.

In fact, the only person involved in the campaigns that we absolutely know was working with Russia to help lift sanctions was Tony Podesta, but for some reason thats ok.

Explain to me why this degree of separation matter? Are you claiming then that it would be ok for Trump to hire a law firm to get dirt on Hillary that is directly being paid by Russia? Thats absurd.

The real differnece is that while you have a bunch of hypotheticals about what may have been promised between Trump jr. and the Russian lawyer, we have proof that DNC people PAID an organization that was actively working on behalf of Russian interests, and in turn received dirt on their political opponent.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Dudemo5

Deciding to deny meetings with Russians in the midst of a witch hunt is understandable - though ill advised.
Certainly no evidence of any crime being committed.


It WAS, in fact, a crime for Flynn to deny those "meetings with Russia."


Actually no it wasn't.
The crime (alleged) was that he lied to the FBI.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

My apologies, I entirely missed this. I had no idea what you were talking about. Now I have some reading to do.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The contact between the DNC and crowd strike was merchant and customer.
I wish that I got stock options every time I turned on the Disney channel, bought a burger at Mickey Ds or logged into Facebook.
Crowd Strike is a computer forensics company. They're not some fly by night company the DNC hired in a back alley to keep secrets away from the FBI.
They hired them to do exactly what the FBI would have done but they wanted the answers now and not when the FBI could tell them. They were aware of the hack almost immediately and went to work quickly to find out what was going on. Remember the atmosphere was that Hillary was getting too much support from the sitting administration and trump denied any hack ever took place hence the Seth Rich story. So an investigation into the computer by the FBI may have been viewed as biased by some. Some may have even looked at the FBI naming the Russians as an act of collusion with the Clinton campaign.
Imagine those conversations here. Oh they just said it was Russia. There's already a big element of distrust for the IC on the right. Crowd strike was supposed to be their way of avoiding people saying they were in cahoots with the FBI on the hacking. Seems that they're damned either way.
If someone is determined to make it anyone but the Russians at this point well they are being willfully ignorant.
The same people who are crying about the FBI not examining the server would be calling the FBI biased right now if they had because the results would have been identical.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

I am not making an argument.


That much is clear.


Of course it is.
It is not an argument to ask for evidence.
The onus is on you to back up your argument, which you have failed to do.

I will refer you back to the OP and the challenge to provide the details of any crime that was committed.
Good luck.


Already done.


Which would be appear underline the fact that you don't actually have any idea about a crime that has been committed, because all you have stated so far is some crazy notion that getting opposition research from someone who is connected to a foreign govt is illegal under campaign finance laws. You have already said yourself you don't think that will go anywhere, and I am still waiting for the precedent that would add some credence to the FEC regulations covering information.
edit on 7/8/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Grambler

My apologies, I entirely missed this. I had no idea what you were talking about. Now I have some reading to do.


No worries at all. You made read and still disagree.

But at least we are having a civil discussion on it.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

as proof in the e-mail chain released from Trump Jr. the meeting was set up by an American friend, so the similarities between that and the Steele dossier are staggering. Seeing the left (or in this case the anti-Trumpers) try to separate the two is both sad, and funny.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

The contact between the DNC and crowd strike was merchant and customer.


Yes thats exactly right! And it just so happens that the merchant gave the customer the exact answer they were looking for, to blame the Russians.

You don't think Crowdstrike had incentive to come to that conclusion?

And the rest of your posts seems ridiculous to me.

Newsflash; the FBI DID say it was the Russians, its just that they did so WITHOUT actually looking at the evidence. So all of your hypotheticals about how if they were the ones that looked at the server are absurd.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Since when does being wrong about something mean you're wrong about everything?
Everyone makes mistakes. Does that mean that no one is ever right about anything.
Even you?



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
Here's a link with easy to read charts and graphs for the terminally confused.

www.politico.com...


I agree - you must be terminally confused to read those charts and come to a conclusion about a crime being committed in the Trump Jr meeting, or indeed come to any conclusion about evidence of collusion to influence an election.

Nice charts though - quite amusing that someone actually created them. I wonder have they done some similar charts for all US business men and politicians.?

edit on 7/8/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Just so you understand.
The Federal Elections Commission is in charge of the section of the CFR we have been discussing.
The FEC is the first and only office to define terms in its section of the CFR.
www.fec.gov...



Also, in AO 1984-41 (National Conservative Foundation), the Commission allowed a foreign national to underwrite the broadcast of apolitical ads that attempted to expose the alleged political bias of the media. The Commission found that these ads were permissible because they were not “election influencing” in that they did not mention candidates, political offices, political parties, incumbent federal officeholders or any past or future election.

That my friend is something called legal precedent.
The FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION allowed a foreign national to "provide something of value" to a political campaign.
So depending on what the trump campaign were to do with the ALLEGED (no one has said anything was given) dirt it would have been perfectly legal.

From the same link


Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer "exemption" as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone.

The trump campaign was approached by these people. They volunteered. Again precedent.
Same link


In AO 2014-20 (Make Your Laws PAC), the Commission concluded that a political action committee could accept assistance from a foreign national in developing intellectual property for the PAC, such as trademarks, graphics, and website design because the services accepted by the PAC would fall under the volunteer exemption.

oh so the FEC thinks developing intellectual property is not a thing of value???



In MUR 5987, the Commission examined a situation in which a foreign national provided an uncompensated musical concert performance as a volunteer for a federal candidate’s campaign as part of a fundraising event. The candidate’s campaign had paid all of the costs of hosting the concert, including the rental of the venue and equipment and providing security. The performer had merely provided his uncompensated volunteer services to the campaign and had not participated in any of the campaign’s decision-making. Based on these facts, the Commission found no reason to believe that the foreign national or the federal candidate’s committee had violated the Act’s foreign national prohibition

Again precedent.
So the FEC thinks an artists work is not a thing of value???
Napster showed us otherwise but the FEC laws are separate from all of that.


Please by all means post anything resembling a FEC AO that shows otherwise.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
As I've pointed out multiple times, the "volunteer exception" to the Campaign Finance law DOES NOT APPLY if the Russian members of that meeting are being paid by the Russian government.

The campaign finance rules apply.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

Just so you understand.
The Federal Elections Commission is in charge of the section of the CFR we have been discussing.
The FEC is the first and only office to define terms in its section of the CFR.
www.fec.gov...



Also, in AO 1984-41 (National Conservative Foundation), the Commission allowed a foreign national to underwrite the broadcast of apolitical ads that attempted to expose the alleged political bias of the media. The Commission found that these ads were permissible because they were not “election influencing” in that they did not mention candidates, political offices, political parties, incumbent federal officeholders or any past or future election.

That my friend is something called legal precedent.
The FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION allowed a foreign national to "provide something of value" to a political campaign.
So depending on what the trump campaign were to do with the ALLEGED (no one has said anything was given) dirt it would have been perfectly legal.

From the same link


Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer "exemption" as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone.

The trump campaign was approached by these people. They volunteered. Again precedent.
Same link


In AO 2014-20 (Make Your Laws PAC), the Commission concluded that a political action committee could accept assistance from a foreign national in developing intellectual property for the PAC, such as trademarks, graphics, and website design because the services accepted by the PAC would fall under the volunteer exemption.

oh so the FEC thinks developing intellectual property is not a thing of value???



In MUR 5987, the Commission examined a situation in which a foreign national provided an uncompensated musical concert performance as a volunteer for a federal candidate’s campaign as part of a fundraising event. The candidate’s campaign had paid all of the costs of hosting the concert, including the rental of the venue and equipment and providing security. The performer had merely provided his uncompensated volunteer services to the campaign and had not participated in any of the campaign’s decision-making. Based on these facts, the Commission found no reason to believe that the foreign national or the federal candidate’s committee had violated the Act’s foreign national prohibition

Again precedent.
So the FEC thinks an artists work is not a thing of value???
Napster showed us otherwise but the FEC laws are separate from all of that.


Please by all means post anything resembling a FEC AO that shows otherwise.



Thanks for this.
At the time a few loony left sites tried to stretch the FEC laws because they had to to try and find a crime. That has died down now as I am sure even they knew they had to give that up. Still it's repeated on forums, just like the '17 agencies' nonsense because propaganda has a habit of sticking in willing minds.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

I am not making an argument.


That much is clear.


Of course it is.
It is not an argument to ask for evidence.
The onus is on you to back up your argument, which you have failed to do.

I will refer you back to the OP and the challenge to provide the details of any crime that was committed.
Good luck.


Already done.


Which would be appear underline the fact that you don't actually have any idea about a crime that has been committed, because all you have stated so far is some crazy notion that getting opposition research from someone who is connected to a foreign govt is illegal under campaign finance laws. You have already said yourself you don't think that will go anywhere, and I am still waiting for the precedent that would add some credence to the FEC regulations covering information.


Already covered.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Since when does being wrong about something mean you're wrong about everything?
Everyone makes mistakes. Does that mean that no one is ever right about anything.
Even you?


I am wrong all of the time.

That is not the isssue.

Let me try to put it to you this way.

I think we would both agree that if Trump colluded with Russia to hack the DNC, it is the biggest political scandal in the history of ur country, and I would like to see Trump not only kicked out of office, but sent to prison.

So far we are on the same page.

The first thing to prove, the most crucial aspect that every other part of an investigation would hinge on, is proving Russia hacked the DNC. If they didn't the rest of the story falls apart.

The best piece of evidence is the server. Much like investigating a body would be crucial in a murder investigation, investigating the server is that important to this hacking investigation.

So we agree the investigation is huge, and that the server is a crucial piece of evidence.

Why then would the FBI out source investigating that server to a private company connected to the victim? It is just ridiculous.

Now about Crowdstrike being wrong.

Of course them being wrong once doesn't mean they are always wrong. But it proves they are not always right.

So why would the FBI rely on a company they know has made mistakes to look at the most important piece of evidence, in the most important investigation they have ever had?

It makes no sense.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5
As I've pointed out multiple times, the "volunteer exception" to the Campaign Finance law DOES NOT APPLY if the Russian members of that meeting are being paid by the Russian government.

The campaign finance rules apply.

www.fec.gov...


Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer "exemption" as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone.

guess you know more than the FEC about this?



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join