Breaking: First Charges Filed in Mueller Investigation

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: DanteGaland

I love how it says "may have violated the law", but doesn't cite which laws. Because he made that up. There's no law that says a foreign national or foreign government can't tell you about something your political opponent did wrong.

You got lied to.

'
And all the while, no comment on the actual proof that the podesta group worked with manafort and broke the exact same law.

Remember, This indictment against manafort was supposed to be very important (whihc it is). And the crimes he committed are very serious (which they are).

But when this proves that the Podesta group committed these same crimes, none of these people yelling about how important Mueller is has anything at all to say.

They are just hoping that one person can cast any small amount of doubt on this, and then they will all parrot it.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: DanteGaland

I love how it says "may have violated the law", but doesn't cite which laws. Because he made that up. There's no law that says a foreign national or foreign government can't tell you about something your political opponent did wrong.

You got lied to.

No. The laws do not say that. But what has been posited is that they may have violated a law that states you cannot receive, or be promised to receive, anything of value from a foreign individual, in regards to campaign contributions, etc.

It's difficult to say that is what happened in this case and if it would merit prosecution, but that is a current concern of many.

a reply to: introvert

That's talking about money or material gifts. Not applicable to receiving information. The value of information is subjective.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: introvert

That's talking about money or material gifts. Not applicable to receiving information. The value of information is subjective.

No. It states anything of value. That's a very wide open area open to interpretation.

That is why I question how well it would stick, but the law does state anything of value.

a reply to: introvert

Yeah I'm familiar with what it says, I was subject to the same type of laws when I was in the service. It doesn't apply to information, the law is to prevent you receiving gifts from foreign officials. Sorry.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: introvert

Yeah I'm familiar with what it says, I was subject to the same type of laws when I was in the service. It doesn't apply to information, the law is to prevent you receiving gifts from foreign officials. Sorry.

You were subject to the same type of laws regarding political campaigns and contributions in the service?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Lets clear this up so you dont continue misleading people.

The indictments have nothing to do with Russian "collusion".
The indictments have nothing to do with President Trump.
The indictments for Manafort are based on actions ending in 2014.

As to a post by another member -
How are you getting Republicans caught with their hand in the till? The crimes in question were not linked to any political party or campaign. 2 businessmen got caught with financial crimes.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: introvert

Yeah I'm familiar with what it says, I was subject to the same type of laws when I was in the service. It doesn't apply to information, the law is to prevent you receiving gifts from foreign officials. Sorry.

You were subject to the same type of laws regarding political campaigns and contributions in the service?

Those campaign laws all stem from the government ethics laws, which apply across the board in government. There's a reason why, somewhere in the statute, you'll find a monetary amount over which you can't receive. It's to create as little grey area as possible. How do you determine what information is valuable? It's purely a matter of opinion, it just wouldn't be practical to try to apply the law that way. If you can find a case in which it's been used that way, I'd love to see it.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: Grambler

You MIGHT want to read this article buddy:

Both Campaigns Sought Russian Dirt. Clinton's Way Was Legal.

What has surfaced is that the Democrats in this instance played it smarter than Trump's associates. The Clinton campaign had the good sense to pay a contractor for Russian info besmirching the opponent (even if they do eventually get in trouble for failing to disclose it). Trump Jr. and Papadopoulos, on the other hand, may have violated the law by agreeing to receive Russian dirt that was never delivered.

and in the process the DNC and Clinton campaign violated FEC disbursement requirement by lying about the purpose of the money they paid those contractors.

You should brush up on all the facts buddy.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: DanteGaland

I love how it says "may have violated the law", but doesn't cite which laws. Because he made that up. There's no law that says a foreign national or foreign government can't tell you about something your political opponent did wrong.

You got lied to.

There are federal laws that prevent foreign nationals from donating anything of value to a candidate running for an elected position in the US.

A legal argument can be made that the information in question is an item of political value in addition to monetary value.


ETA -
What introvert said.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: introvert

Yeah I'm familiar with what it says, I was subject to the same type of laws when I was in the service. It doesn't apply to information, the law is to prevent you receiving gifts from foreign officials. Sorry.

You were subject to the same type of laws regarding political campaigns and contributions in the service?

Those campaign laws all stem from the government ethics laws, which apply across the board in government. There's a reason why, somewhere in the statute, you'll find a monetary amount over which you can't receive. It's to create as little grey area as possible. How do you determine what information is valuable? It's purely a matter of opinion, it just wouldn't be practical to try to apply the law that way. If you can find a case in which it's been used that way, I'd love to see it.

Determining value of information is easy in this case.

The DNC and Clinton campaign paid out over 12 million dollars for the dossier.

By extension the value of the item they received was worth 12 million dollars.

Trying to hide those disbursements, and violating FEC laws in the process, is a pretty large red flag that the actions to obtain the dossier violated our laws.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: introvert

Yeah I'm familiar with what it says, I was subject to the same type of laws when I was in the service. It doesn't apply to information, the law is to prevent you receiving gifts from foreign officials. Sorry.

You were subject to the same type of laws regarding political campaigns and contributions in the service?

Those campaign laws all stem from the government ethics laws, which apply across the board in government. There's a reason why, somewhere in the statute, you'll find a monetary amount over which you can't receive. It's to create as little grey area as possible. How do you determine what information is valuable? It's purely a matter of opinion, it just wouldn't be practical to try to apply the law that way. If you can find a case in which it's been used that way, I'd love to see it.

Determining value of information is easy in this case.

The DNC and Clinton campaign paid out over 12 million dollars for the dossier.

By extension the value of the item they received was worth 12 million dollars.

Trying to hide those disbursements, and violating FEC laws in the process, is a pretty large red flag that the actions to obtain the dossier violated our laws.

Yeah he wasn't talking about that case. He was talking about that volunteer on Trump's campaign trying to get dirt on Clinton, and trying to apply that same law because then he'd be "receiving" something from them. You'd never get a judge or a jury to buy that. You'd probably lose your license to practice for malicious prosecution.

I hope he gets them all. I'm a conservative, but hope like hell he gets anyone in the trump administration that is corrupt, I also hope he gets anyone on the Dem's side who's corrupt, I hope he gets anyone that is on any side for the right $$$ who's corrupt.

Let's be honest, none of these politicians have anything like our interest in mind. They don't give 2 sh**ts about anything other than their bank account or the donor's needs.

String them all up and help turn our system back to one which works the people of the land (left or right).

~Winter

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: introvert

Yeah I'm familiar with what it says, I was subject to the same type of laws when I was in the service. It doesn't apply to information, the law is to prevent you receiving gifts from foreign officials. Sorry.

You were subject to the same type of laws regarding political campaigns and contributions in the service?

Those campaign laws all stem from the government ethics laws, which apply across the board in government. There's a reason why, somewhere in the statute, you'll find a monetary amount over which you can't receive. It's to create as little grey area as possible. How do you determine what information is valuable? It's purely a matter of opinion, it just wouldn't be practical to try to apply the law that way. If you can find a case in which it's been used that way, I'd love to see it.

Determining value of information is easy in this case.

The DNC and Clinton campaign paid out over 12 million dollars for the dossier.

By extension the value of the item they received was worth 12 million dollars.

Trying to hide those disbursements, and violating FEC laws in the process, is a pretty large red flag that the actions to obtain the dossier violated our laws.

Yeah he wasn't talking about that case. He was talking about that volunteer on Trump's campaign trying to get dirt on Clinton, and trying to apply that same law because then he'd be "receiving" something from them. You'd never get a judge or a jury to buy that. You'd probably lose your license to practice for malicious prosecution.

Well, actually, no i wouldnt lose a law license for presenting that prosecution. When determining value in criminal and civil cases there are a few methods to determine value. 1 way is by asking the person who received the item how much they think its worth monetarily. Another method is how much they paid for it. A 3rd way is by comparison to similar situations.

Also in Federal criminal proceedings the use of a grand jury is used to determine if probable cause exists to to support the charges. It is similar to a preliminary hearing in other judicial jurisdictions where the prosecution presents their case that supports the charges filed.

Use of a grand jury, which is what was used in this case, allows for the presentation of hearsay evidence and does not allow a lawyer to be present for the accused. It is run by the prosecutor which is why there is a saying that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.

All of which would need to be argued in court in front of the judge and or jury / grand jury.

The dossier is a tangible, physical, item.
Like a book
a painting
a baseball card
a rare card
a rare currency
an autograph

As for Trumps campaign they never received the item however had they received it in exchange for favorable positions on current US laws that affect them or had they paid for it then you would have attached value to the item, violating the law.

a reply to: face23785

There's a reason why, somewhere in the statute, you'll find a monetary amount over which you can't receive. It's to create as little grey area as possible.

I did not see any such thing in that particular statute.

How do you determine what information is valuable?

That is a point of contention and why I do not think anything will stick in that regard.

a reply to: Gryphon66


That is absolutely untrue! No such connection has been established between Trump and Russia in regard to any type of "collusion" (which again is not a crime, even if it were true). The connection was a meeting of unknown context, which is entirely legal and totally normal.

What isn't normal is Hillary Clinton and the DNC paying for information (some has been proven false: Cohen, et al) from foreign individuals (including Russians, and ex-British spy Steele - also a foreign influence) that was used politically against Trump. She conspired with foreign nationals of at least two countries (Russia, Britain) in order to derail Trump's candidacy. That is the real story here

I will again point out that COLLUSION is NOT AGAINST ANY LAW EVEN REMOTELY INVOLING AN ELECTION.

Once again, there is no crime known as "collusion" and I challenge Gryphon66 personally to produce any such statute. He won't be able to produce any such statute, meaning my prediction about the Mueller investigation has been right since day one: THE INVESTIGATION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NON-CRIME OF "COLLUSION" WHICH LEFTISTS AND MSM ATTEMPTED TO SPIN INTO AN INVESTIGATION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT WHICH IS ENTIRELY UNTRUE

A special prosecutor does not investigate non-crimes, therefore it is 100% IMPOSSIBLE that Mueller is investigating the false-narrative known as "Collusion." Yet again, there is absolutely no such thing "collusion" as it pertains to elections. "Collusion" is only defined in anti-trust laws, having to do with financial institutions and corporations - it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ELECTIONS.

The real crime here is that Hillary Clinton conspired with foreign citizens (from the UK and Russia) to produce a salacious and false "dossier" which may have even been used to obtain FISA warrants and illegally spy on several US Citizens.

It looks like the Podesta brothers failed to report funds received from the same russian actors that were involved with manafort. Apparently they committed the same crime as Manafort and Gates - tax evasion by failing to report income.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
It looks like the Podesta brothers failed to report funds received from the same russian actors that were involved with manafort. Apparently they committed the same crime as Manafort and Gates - tax evation by failing to report income.

This is absolutely true.

See this thread here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
It looks like the Podesta brothers failed to report funds received from the same russian actors that were involved with manafort. Apparently they committed the same crime as Manafort and Gates - tax evasion by failing to report income.

Which makes it even more embarrassing for the Hillary camp and their devastating loss.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Xcathdra
It looks like the Podesta brothers failed to report funds received from the same russian actors that were involved with manafort. Apparently they committed the same crime as Manafort and Gates - tax evation by failing to report income.

This is absolutely true.

See this thread here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No. It''s not absolutely true.

The Podesta Group has not been accused of the same money laundering scheme as Manafort and Gates...and John Podesta has not been involved since he began to work for Obama.