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.

 

Don Jr. Proved Correct About Meeting With Russian Lawyer, Memo Obtained.

page: 15
38
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Alien Abduct


Will you please cite the law that was violated and how? Probably not because there is nothing. Let's see what ya got tho.


I think I assumed you meant there is nothing he did wrong or law he broke. Maybe you didn't mean that.


No I didn't mean he did nothing wrong. I asked you to show what he did wrong and the law that says it is wrong. I said you prob can't because there is nothing(nothing available). Meaning we don't have any information on what was said in the meeting.


Well I have to apologize then. I misunderstood your comment.

I also figured after you saw I said that as well you would have backed off. Which was literally my next post.




posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

We have come up with hypothetical situations where Don jr could have obtained the info both illegally or legally.

As you have pointed out repeatedly (and correctly) in this thread, we simply don't know what happened in that meeting and we may well never know. However I believe if there were anything of substance found something would have been leaked by now.

I am of the opinion the Russia collusion thing is dead in the water.....big time.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

This is the truth. Thanks for the debate even though we probably are closer than believed.

My feeling on collusion is that he had some scum around the pond doing stuff he didn't want to know about.

Same as it ever was. He just wasn't using the typical pros Clinton has that shred documents and burn servers.

I think trump himself probably kept plausible deniability in his pocket like they all do.

BUT that is speculation

As a carpenter I am generally skeptical of developers so I definitely hold bias.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I dont expect you to take anyones word for it.
I just provided the actual FEC regulations and AO's.
The msm likes to throw out the "things of value" phrase without any FEC context.

You are correct that we do not have all the info, and there could have been illegal activity going on at that meeting.
If there was I hope those who broke the law are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: shooterbrody

Why didn't you quote the relevant passage?


The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the United States. 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.

www.fec.gov...

Information, whether true or not, that can damage a rival campaign is certainly "something of value." Wouldn't you agree?

I did quote the AO's that list many things one might consider as "things of value" that the FEC has determined were not.
I also put the link to those AO's in this thread.
One of the AO's lists intellectual property as something which can be volunteered by a foreign national legally.
A campaign dirt report could be a foreign nationals intellectual property.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Sure, and Lawyers can use the words to make a case since there is always room to define intent.

We don't have the info. On any of it.

Frankly I am sick of the msm convicting everyone on twitter and there crappy news stories.

I just think to play ball in DC your probably not very honest even if you are an "outsider".

When someone is brave enough to go after term limits and lobby power, I may be less skeptical of DC.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: shooterbrody

Why didn't you quote the relevant passage?


The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the United States. 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.

www.fec.gov...

Information, whether true or not, that can damage a rival campaign is certainly "something of value." Wouldn't you agree?

I did quote the AO's that list many things one might consider as "things of value" that the FEC has determined were not.
I also put the link to those AO's in this thread.
One of the AO's lists intellectual property as something which can be volunteered by a foreign national legally.
A campaign dirt report could be a foreign nationals intellectual property.


Only of its made up?

Link your intellectual property definition. It doesn't say intelligence



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I looked at the list of definitions in the cfr and I did not see one for intellectual property, campaign dirt, hacked emails ect.
That is why I linked the AO's for the FEC.
The AO's are established cases from the FEC that relate to actual incidents.
The AO's linked show that goods (logos,website design) and services (musical performances for campaign doners) can be volunteered by foreign nationals and not be "things of value" as listed in the regulation, as long as no compensation is given for these.

I would submit based on the AO's that if a foreign national had campaign dirt such as the steele dossier(steels intellectual property) and volunteered it and got no compensation for it it would be legal.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

You could try in a defense. But your arguing what IS means basically. There is no other definition of intellectual property other than made up by the mind. So you would be arguing against a legal precedent.

Keep in mind this stuff is to prevent foreign manipulation in elections. Now whether or not people stretch the rules and what they get away it is another matter....


edit on 18-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

No the FEC has already issued an AO for intellectual property being donated by a foreign national. That is not in dispute.
Also the FEC has issued AO's for goods and services. Foreign nationals can legally volunteer theses things and they are not included as "things of value".

If anything was volunteered at this meeting, which we do not know, it would be up to the FEC to decide if it was legal or not.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Right but the words intelectual property are already defined. Just like the word is...

You can't just change the meaning of a word, you can try if your all out of other options but it's a huge stretch and a hail marry.

The value however is what would be debated by the lawyers. Not intelectual property.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Ok whatever you say, its not like I use the cfr on a daily basis for my employment.
You may believe what you like.
For the purposes of the regulation we are discussing the word "person" is defined as:
www.ecfr.gov...


§100.10 Person (52 U.S.C. 30101(11)). Person means an individual, partnership, committee, association, corporation, labor organization, and any other organization, or group of persons, but does not include the Federal government or any authority of the Federal government.


www.merriam-webster.com...



Definition of person 1 :human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes chairpersonspokesperson 2 :a character or part in or as if in a play :guise 3 a
ne of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b :the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures 4 a archaic :bodily appearance b :the body of a human being; also :the body and clothing unlawful search of the person 5 :the personality of a human being :self 6
ne (such as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties 7 :reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection


Vastly different.
Guess which would apply in court with respect to an FEC matter?



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Do you realize this is an entirely different situation?

No?

What definition are you using for intellectual property from the FEC?

Do you know how law works in courts...

So you're going to argue the use of is....


edit on 18-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I guess you do not read what I have posted. I will post it again.
There is no CFR definition of intellectual property with respect to the FEC. I looked it up.
However there is an FEC AO that stated that intellectual property volunteered by a foreign national to a political campaign is NOT illegal.
An FEC AO is legal precedent .
Before it EVER goes to court the FEC would have to rule that the regulation was violated.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

So why are you talking about defined words?

Your really not making much sense.

Intellectual property not being defined has nothing to do with it.

They would be considering if the information had value how they define value.

They would not assume it's intellectual property since no one in the history of law including the FEC has defined it as anything different than creative property.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: shooterbrody

So why are you talking about defined words?

Your really not making much sense.

Intellectual property not being defined has nothing to do with it.

They would be considering if the information had value how they define value.

They would not assume it's intellectual property since no one in the history of law including the FEC has defined it as anything different than creative property.

I thought you were of the opinion that foreign nationals were not allowed to contribute to an election campaign?
Have you changed your position?
You quoted your interpretation of "federal law" did you not?



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: shooterbrody

So why are you talking about defined words?

Your really not making much sense.

Intellectual property not being defined has nothing to do with it.

They would be considering if the information had value how they define value.

They would not assume it's intellectual property since no one in the history of law including the FEC has defined it as anything different than creative property.

I thought you were of the opinion that foreign nationals were not allowed to contribute to an election campaign?
Have you changed your position?
You quoted your interpretation of "federal law" did you not?


Well first off I never said that. I explained how it could be a problem.

And second we were talking about legal prosecution or defense using intellectual property as a totally different definition than its ever been used in the history of law.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier




Federal law makes it a crime for any person to “solicit, accept or receive” a contribution or “anything of value” from a foreign person for a U.S. political campaign or “for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office.”

once again is this not your quote?



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: luthier




Federal law makes it a crime for any person to “solicit, accept or receive” a contribution or “anything of value” from a foreign person for a U.S. political campaign or “for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office.”

once again is this not your quote?


It is and I later quoted the same thing from your source with a different word.

It doesn't change anything does it?

Grasping to save face.

The VALUE is what would be debated. Are you now arguing that too?

Lol.
edit on 18-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

No.
Who determines what "things of value" are?



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join