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

a reply to: kurthall

illegitimate president? i thought his mom and dad was married. RUSSIA MAY HAVE AIRED HILLY'S DIRTY LAUNDRY but funny she and the dnc have not challenged the veracity of laundry just that it was unfair we heard it.

The indictment is merely a morsel thrown to the Dems to lighten their spirits before the "hammer comes down" on the lot of em...

a reply to: burntheshipsAnd



Oh for Christ's sake.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burntheshipsAnd



Oh for Christ's sake.

What?

Obviously....
You think Clinton can break laws and get away with it?

a reply to: kurthall

Hell I bet there are Russian shills right here on ATS

If i was a Russian shill and my job was to divide Americans along political lines i would come to ats and attack Trump relentlessly with complete bias and bs regurgitating a narrative over an over again regardless of any truth or facts. And to hide my intentions and true affiliation i would constantly attack the country i work for while attacking my target.

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: neo96
Sucks that now we are stuck with a illegitimate president, because of Russia.

It's 'an' - as in "we are now stuck with 'an' illegitimate president" - always 'an' when the following word starts with a vowel.

Now, can you explain to me how Trump became POTUS 'because of Russia'?

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: neo96
Sucks that now we are stuck with a illegitimate president, because of Russia.

It's 'an' - as in "we are now stuck with 'an' illegitimate president" - always 'an' when the following word starts with a vowel.

Now, can you explain to me how Trump became POTUS 'because of Russia'?

Give him a break. I've heard proper grammar is one of the more difficult parts of learning English for native Russian and Slavic speakers.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burntheshipsAnd



Oh for Christ's sake.

What?

Obviously....
You think Clinton can break laws and get away with it?

Silly thinks there are no laws hillary can break.

It's a vast right wing conspiracy.

lol.

Based on some of the arguments in this thread that 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 makes them not guilty as they didn't directly pay Steele for the dossier.

Would say a person who hired a hitman (or in this case a lawyer for the DNC and the Hillary campaign) to take out their opposition, yet this so called hitman (or in this case a lawyer for the DNC and the Hillary campaign) but this hitman decided to hire another hitman to do it. Does that mean the person who hired the original hitman is not liable because they hired someone else to do it?

I am sure a pretty dumb analogy, but to me when I think of it this way. I can clearly see the original is just as guilty even if they didn't directly hire the hitmans hitman.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

It's 'an' - as in "we are now stuck with 'an' illegitimate president" - always 'an' when the following word starts with a vowel.

What about...

"After reading a gazillion Left vs Right political thread on ATS, my rotting brain was pondering a universe where the people just got along"

?

(Never heard of this vowel rule thing, what 'an' idea )

Short answer no.

Long answer

If you read the indictment its really not the influencing the election that the Russians are being indicted for that was the purpose of their crimes. It is lots of fraud. Bank fraud, Identity theft, posing as US citizens to by pass federal election laws ect.

If you notice Steele did none of those things.

a reply to: Pyle

It is not just that.

It is that the DNC and Hillary paid cash to the company for the service. It's like if the campaign ate out the whole time and paid non-citizens to deliver it. It was a cash transaction, paying for what the campaign ate - which is disclosed in the finances of the campaign.

The Russians broke a law by giving "value" to the campaign for nothing in return, (thus it isn't reported). The "return" is the "favorable candidate" that we are seeing not do anything to Russian in response.

Take it out of this context. If the world's greatest debate prepper was Russian, and the campaign hired the Russian prepper and paid him $50,000 - which showed up on the disclosure forms. Totally legal.

If the world's greatest debate prepper was Russian, and the campaign was going to pay the person $50,000, but the Russian embassy called and said, "No, Putin loves your candidate, this help will be a gift of the motherland," and the "value" wasn't reported as $50,000, or reported at all - that is illegal.

Hiring Christopher Steele wasn't illegal even if they hired him directly, so long as it was expensed properly in the report (which would be true of an American, also).

The whole point is so that campaigns have to disclose all the things that create an appearance of conflict.

** To the "always Trump comrades" here, if sanctions don't work, why are the Russians always talking to us about lifting them? If they don't work, why is Trump saying that the law itself is having so much deterrence, he doesn't need to do anything?

a reply to: neo96

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: neo96

Yes they did.

No. They did not.

$1,000,000 to Fusion GPS that outsourced it to Orbis that got a pittance from it.

Oh, so you admit exactly what I said. They paid a US firm, who then chose to "outsource" the work. They did not pay Steele directly.

How can you hold the DNC accountable for a choice they did not make?

It's just sad how the media can perpetuate false narratives by relying on the public's general lack of specific knowledge on the topics they speak on.

Have you ever hired a lawyer?Do you know their professional obligations require them to get approval ("instructions") for everything from the client?? Heck, have you ever hired any sort of agent to do work for you and then did not enforce any oversight over the work at all?

originally posted by: I think Im normal
Based on some of the arguments in this thread that 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 makes them not guilty as they didn't directly pay Steele for the dossier.

Would say a person who hired a hitman (or in this case a lawyer for the DNC and the Hillary campaign) to take out their opposition, yet this so called hitman (or in this case a lawyer for the DNC and the Hillary campaign) but this hitman decided to hire another hitman to do it. Does that mean the person who hired the original hitman is not liable because they hired someone else to do it?

I am sure a pretty dumb analogy, but to me when I think of it this way. I can clearly see the original is just as guilty even if they didn't directly hire the hitmans hitman.

You're on the right track. I speak from experience, lawyers can't act without instructions from their client. The lawyers might advise and promote certain third parties to complete work, but the client makes the decisions. The people paying the bills have the say, it's as uncomplicated as that.

a reply to: neo96

YES

originally posted by: jwlaffer

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: neo96

Yes they did.

No. They did not.

$1,000,000 to Fusion GPS that outsourced it to Orbis that got a pittance from it.

Oh, so you admit exactly what I said. They paid a US firm, who then chose to "outsource" the work. They did not pay Steele directly.

How can you hold the DNC accountable for a choice they did not make?

It's just sad how the media can perpetuate false narratives by relying on the public's general lack of specific knowledge on the topics they speak on.

Have you ever hired a lawyer?Do you know their professional obligations require them to get approval ("instructions") for everything from the client?? Heck, have you ever hired any sort of agent to do work for you and then did not enforce any oversight over the work at all?

Plus, the claims that the Clinton campaign did not know that a foreign agent was being paid to work with the Kremlin is false. We know the campaign AND State Depot were actively involved in feeding their own information to Steele to have it placed in the dossier.

It's a rock solid case of paying foreign agents to influence an election and goes far beyond one political campaign using foreign agents to undermine their opposition. It includes the sitting govt. helping them in their illegal endeavour.

a reply to: jwlaffer

Have you ever hired a lawyer?Do you know their professional obligations require them to get approval ("instructions") for everything from the client?? Heck, have you ever hired any sort of agent to do work for you and then did not enforce any oversight over the work at all?

Ok, but what does that have to do with this situation? The lawyer did not even have a part in choosing to hire Steele. Even still, hiring Steele in and of itself is still not an illegal act.

At this point it seems like grasping at straws rooted in ignorance.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: neo96

Yes they did.

No. They did not.

$1,000,000 to Fusion GPS that outsourced it to Orbis that got a pittance from it.

Oh, so you admit exactly what I said. They paid a US firm, who then chose to "outsource" the work. They did not pay Steele directly.

How can you hold the DNC accountable for a choice they did not make?