Does Mueller Indictment Mean Clinton Campaign Can Be Indicted for Chris Steele?

originally posted by: burntheships
These criminal actions on the part of Hillary Clinton are
being investigated as we speak.

Several investigations.

Games up for her.

You guys have been saying this for years.

But no worries, I'm sure this time the bombshells are more than simple clickbait.

Talk about witch hunts 😂

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: burntheships
These criminal actions on the part of Hillary Clinton are
being investigated as we speak.

Several investigations.

Games up for her.

You guys have been saying this for years.

But no worries, I'm sure this time the bombshells are more than simple clickbait.

Talk about witch hunts 😂

If the people ask for something long enough, and those in charge are with the people, the requested actions are taken. It's more WHEN than IF.

Yes, absolutely.

FOREIGN INTEFERENCE and meddling. Hillary Clinton colluded and conspired with a foreign entity to influence the election. So yes, that counts under the broad definition of fraud Mueller used in yesterday's indictments.

Best part is, Mueller doesn't have to be the one who indicts them.

Unwanted British meddling, since he's a former intelligence officer. We must hold their government and people fully accountable for their meddling.

Someone should run on an anti-foreign interference platform. It is 100% past time for another Clinton special counsel

And I know I'm getting pretty damn sick of NON-AMERICAN foreigners butting into our domestic politics where they have no business being. It doesn't concern you if you're a foreigner. It is none of your business. Butt out and go fix your sh##-hole country instead of worrying about ours and being jealous of it 24/7/365.

Thankfully wanna-be spy Chris Steele has already been referred for criminal prosecution. They need to add the conspiracy and fraud charges in though. And the complicit UK government (who trained Steele and possibly provided material assistance) should also be punished severely, up to and including military force and strikes on locations responsible for the interference.

The Russian government should also be punished severely, up to and including military force and strikes on locations responsible for the interference.

ANY foreigner or foreign government who butts into US politics should be prosecuted to the absolute maximum extent of our domestic law and laws of war. Traditional war doesn't exist anymore. It is all hybrid/cyber/information based. Any nation that isn't the USA who attempts to interfere or otherwise influence our politics or any US policy should be met with extreme force and determination.

Time to remove ANY AND ALL foreign influences from this country. All special interest groups. All lobby groups. All corporations without American ownership (they can stay here, just no meddling in our politics)

a reply to: RomeByFire


You deny she conspired with a non-US citizen to meddle in the election....? Its provable. She financed it, directed it and fully played it up. Ergo, conspiracy to defraud US.

British meddling is highly unwanted. We sent them whimpering home with their tails between their legs twice for this. Our revolution and again in 1812. Must we kick their socialist behinds out of here again?

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: introvert


ive used ths tactic before. i know it when i see it. GPS has a verifiable track record of shady things. dismissing it is foolish.

Ok. How does that equate to the Hillary campaign being indicted for something they had no choice in?

Same for trump then. if the law is equal right?

I never said Trump was guilty or would be indicted.

Are you admitting this is nonsense?

a reply to: RadioRobert

Great! So you admit the obvious that they were being paid to produce oppo research finally. Nothing illegal about opposition research

I've always admitted that is what they were paid to do. Are you arguing against something I've never said?

So why would someone pay someone to pay someone to pay someone to pay someone simply to acquire a service that would otherwise be legal and above the board? Was it to avoid disclosure? Why do you think that might be relevant looking at the big picture as this slowly unravels?

Sure. look in to it. But if you admit that what they did was legal, why are we looking in to it again?

a reply to: introvert


Stars are from me introvert. I admire your skepticism, yet also respect the fact you have your beliefs and stick to them.

Thank you, sincerely, for not shoving your beliefs on everyone else by pretending they're determined facts (some may be facts indeed, but I mean the totality of them)

I never said Trump was guilty or would be indicted.

I appreciate that, just as nobody here can say for certain he won't be. I will say this, based on the existing allegations and the indictments yesterday, I find it highly unlikely he'll be charged with any offense arising from the conspiracy they described. I've been wrong before of course, but typically prosecutors won't call someone "unwitting and manipulated" if they intend to pursue conspiracy charges (which require knowledge of the conspiracy + some unlawful action to advance the conspiracy)

a reply to: JBurns

Stars are from me introvert. I admire your skepticism, yet also respect the fact you have your beliefs and stick to them.

My beliefs have nothing to do with this.

Thank you, sincerely, for not shoving your beliefs on everyone else by pretending they're determined facts (some may be facts indeed, but I mean the totality of them)

So you admit that "some" may be facts and not beliefs. Ok.

I appreciate that, just as nobody here can say for certain he won't be. I will say this, based on the existing allegations and the indictments yesterday, I find it highly unlikely he'll be charged with any offense arising from the conspiracy they described.

It doesn't matter if he is indicted or not. Fact remains that Trump is, by the standard we have set with Hillary, Obama, etc, "tainted" goods.

I've been wrong before of course, but typically prosecutors won't call someone "unwitting and manipulated" if they intend to pursue conspiracy charges (which require knowledge of the conspiracy + some unlawful action to advance the conspiracy)

What you are referring to is only a small part of the big picture. That line in section 6 only addressed that small part.

I'd be willing to wait and let it play out before jumping to conclusions.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RadioRobert

Great! So you admit the obvious that they were being paid to produce oppo research finally. Nothing illegal about opposition research

I've always admitted that is what they were paid to do. Are you arguing against something I've never said?

So why would someone pay someone to pay someone to pay someone to pay someone simply to acquire a service that would otherwise be legal and above the board? Was it to avoid disclosure? Why do you think that might be relevant looking at the big picture as this slowly unravels?

Sure. look in to it. But if you admit that what they did was legal, why are we looking in to it again?

www.rif.org

You're not even a clever or interesting troll :/

Under Pres. Trumps leadership the FBI and DOJ were able to indict Russian spies . They were able to infiltrate the United States because of the previous administrations open borders and failed Russian reset policies . How ever due to pressure from the left, the scope of foreign influence was narrowed to just one country.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RadioRobert

Great! So you admit the obvious that they were being paid to produce oppo research finally. Nothing illegal about opposition research

I've always admitted that is what they were paid to do. Are you arguing against something I've never said?

So why would someone pay someone to pay someone to pay someone to pay someone simply to acquire a service that would otherwise be legal and above the board? Was it to avoid disclosure? Why do you think that might be relevant looking at the big picture as this slowly unravels?

Sure. look in to it. But if you admit that what they did was legal, why are we looking in to it again?

www.rif.org

You're not even a clever or interesting troll :/

So you do not have an intelligent or applicable rebuttal?

Ok.

Again, it seems to me that you are trying to argue against something I did not say and you also admit what they did was not illegal.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96
Steele is not an American citizen.

Team left paid him to write the dossier to influence the election.

WHERE ARE their indictments?

"Team Left" did not pay Steele to write the dossier.

A lawyer for the DNC and the Hillary campaign paid a US firm to conduct opposition research, who then chose to hire Steele to do the work.

Big difference and your OP is based on a huge false equivalence.

Am I to understand that if you involve enough middle men, you don't have to have any recourse to the law?

a reply to: introvert

Well, if you'd actually read the post you selectively edited to quote, you'd see the part where they failed to disclose their opposition research and misattributed their million+ dollars spent on opposition research as "legal services". There are campaign finance laws dictating this sort of disclosure. And they didn't follow them.

But you obviously know this because you read it, and simply are talking around it to play ignorant and troll yet another thread. OR you lack reading comprehension. I know what my vote is.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96
Steele is not an American citizen.

Team left paid him to write the dossier to influence the election.

WHERE ARE their indictments?

"Team Left" did not pay Steele to write the dossier.

A lawyer for the DNC and the Hillary campaign paid a US firm to conduct opposition research, who then chose to hire Steele to do the work.

Big difference and your OP is based on a huge false equivalence.

Am I to understand that if you involve enough middle men, you don't have to have any recourse to the law?

No. That is not what I said.

Again, as others admitted, what they did was completely legal.

a reply to: network dude

I thought they passed the RICO act to combat this exact type of behaviour?



The thing about Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation is the FBI already started an investigation into the Clinton Foundation and found enough evidence to expand it. Andrew McCabe stopped the expanded investigation. Now that he's gone there isn't anything holding up an expanded investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Well, if you'd actually read the post you selectively edited to quote, you'd see the part where they failed to disclose their opposition research and misattributed their million+ dollars spent on opposition research as "legal services". There are campaign finance laws dictating this sort of disclosure. And they didn't follow them.

There is a lot more context to that than what you are presenting. The DNC properly disclosed where the money went. I believe the law firm did not and is easily remedied with a simple filing of a few forms.

But you obviously know this because you read it, and simply are talking around it to play ignorant and troll yet another thread. OR you lack reading comprehension. I know what my vote is.

Yes, I do know it. It is not as big a deal, if at all, as you think.

As far as the rest, I do not care what you think is trolling or what you think of my reading comprehension.

If you are unable to properly formulate and intelligent argument without relying on such lazy tactics, you can waste someone else's time.

By definition, your previous post would fall under the umbrella of trolling.

Well, there you go, folks.

All you have to do to get away with electioneering is hire a law firm to act as middlemen.

a reply to: neo96

This article is a complete #show and the arguments are absurd on their face. First off, what were the actual charges?

- 1 count Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (923. 18 U.S.C. § 371)
- 1 count Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349)
- 6 counts Aggravated Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A)

So the underlying premise of the opinion piece already falls flat on its face. None of the charges are for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) or the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

The claims made about Steele are nonsense. First, notice that his summation of "Mueller's theory" doesn't actually match the charges. Secondly, he mischaracterizes events and thirdly, there are factual errors.

First, if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make Steele a criminal: first, he is a foreign citizen; second, he tried to influence an election, which he received payments to do (including from the FBI itself); and third, he neither registered as a foreign agent nor listed his receipts and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission.

1. Steele was not paid to "influence the election." Steele was paid to provide research.

2. Not only didn't the FBI pay Steele to "influence the election," by all accounts, they didn't actually pay him at all.

3. FARA requires registration of "foreign agents" — a "foreign agent" isn't synonymous with "a foreign person" — that's not what the term refers to. US citizens can and often do act as "foreign agents." Foreign agents are those who act as agents of foreign principals. From FARA.gov:

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was enacted in 1938. FARA is a disclosure statute that requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities.

Who is the foreign principal of which Steele would be acting as an agent? There is none. In fact, the author's argument is self-contradicting as he later claims that the fact that Steele was paid by Fusion GPS who was paid by Perkins Coie who was paid by the DNC/Clinton campaign, implicates all of those entities. In effect, he's arguing that they're all guilty of a crime because Steele was acting as their agent while simultaneously (and erroneously) claiming that Steele was working as a foreign agent. That doesn't make sense. If he's their agent, he can't be a foreign agent and if he's not a foreign agent, what are all those entities guilty of?

That's next level cognitive dissonance.

4. Steele would not be required to file receipts or expenditures with the FEC, even if he was paid directly by the Clinton campaign. It's akin to saying that Chinese manufacturers of MAGA hats would have had to file with the FEC. There's some question about how the DNC and Clinton campaign reported the disbursements, which were paid to Perkins Coie as "legal services," but it's got nothing to do with Steele.

I have to wonder where the author got his legal degree? Trump University?

a reply to: chadderson

It's against terms and conditions to call members shills. You risk your membership.

a reply to: theantediluvian

This article is a complete #show and the arguments are absurd on their face.

Only to those that are ignoring the hell out of Steele,Fusion GPS,Clinton and the DNC.

They have DONE everything that's been said in that article.

It's no surprise the usual suspects would call it 'absurd'.

While this whole farce as been ABSURD from the beginning.