Mueller indictments for Perjury prove intel communities double standards

a reply to: Grambler

OH, derp.


I didn't know they were implying Steele.

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
a reply to: BlackJackal

That email looks like it was Hillary colluding???

So is this what this whole thing is about?
The Trump campaign looking into dirt that Russia had on Hillary?

What an absolute cluster truck this sham is hahaha
We may as well accuse police of colluding with rape victims to put their attackers in jail, seems like the same thing to me

Wha????

That email was from Rob Goldstone to Donald Trump Jr and it clearly states the following:

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump

Yes it says that they have incriminating dirt on Hillary but to my knowledge that information has never turned up. This is evidence that makes it appear that the Trump campaign is working with Russia to get dirt on Hillary.

a reply to: BlackJackal

I really don’t know what to say!!!

You are more concerned with the footnote of the letter than you are about the content namely that RUSSIA HAD PROOF OF HILLARYS WRONGDOING!!!

So we have 2 options
1) Hillary has dirt out there that Russia has proof of
2) It was BS and a way to trap the Trump campaign so this witch hunt could get started

Either way I don’t see how Trump is the bad guy here

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: Grambler

Are you talking about the Steele Dossier? Seriously? You consider that Russian Collision?

Why is the dirt hillary and the dems got from foriegn spies and kremlin officials perfectly reasonable

But the dirt that don jr was willing to look at but didnt get from kremlin officials is reason for this huge investigation.

Because what the Hillary campaign did was well within the law. They paid an American company for opposition research. That company contacted Steele and he contacted people in Russia to get information.

Trump allegedly worked directly with Russia to get Clinton’s emails. He even asked Russia to get her deleted emails during a debate.

How In the world are those two things comparable?

This has been over before.

The law says that you may not get something of value directly OR INDIRECTLY from foriegn people.

Hence paying a third party to do it does not make it legal.

Also, there has been not one shred of evidence that trump directly worked with russia to get hillarys emails.

please provide that.

If he did do that, he should be impeached and charged with a crime. But i see no proof of that whatsoever.

Sorry afraid you are wrong. I'm about to quote quite a bit but I want you to have the entire context.

There’s the meeting in June 2016 at Trump Tower, in which Donald Trump Jr., campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner met with a lawyer with connections to the Russian government. The lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, apparently proceeded to outline how a businessman facing questionable criminal charges in Russia allegedly made donations to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Then there’s the hiring of former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to dig up dirt on Trump on behalf of a research firm paid by a law firm working for Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Steele’s research involved talking to Russian government officials about what Trump and his campaign might have done, which Steele then compiled into reports that were eventually shared with federal law enforcement officials.

Most of the political conversation has centered on the impropriety and possible illegality of the first point of contact while not raising similar concerns about the second. President Trump has deliberately and regularly conflated the two, arguing that the former meeting was innocuous and that the real malfeasance — the real collusion — was between Clinton’s campaign and those Russians who were speaking to Steele.

Trump is incorrect. There is no reason to think that Clinton’s campaign is culpable for any illegal act related to the employment of Steele and good reason to think that the law was broken around the meeting at Trump Tower — and that members of the Trump team might face legal consequences.

...... (I cut out all the stuff explaining why Trump is culpable for Conspiracy since it is not pertinent, feel free to read if you would like)

So why doesn’t all of this apply to the pathway linking Clinton, the law firm, Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele? For a few key reasons.

One argument is that, since Steele is not a U.S. citizen, he would be barred from involvement in the campaign as surely as the Russians should have been. Lawrence Noble, former chief counsel for the FEC, explained the difference in the situations over email.

“Paying a foreign national fair market value for opposition research is generally not illegal,” Noble wrote. “It is considered a commercial transaction, which is not a contribution.” Clinton’s campaign had paid Fusion GPS directly; it’s a campaign expenditure, not a campaign contribution. Since it’s not a contribution, the FEC allows it.

Steele was hired by Fusion GPS to see what links might exist between Trump and Russian actors. Those connections, built during his service for the British government, were why he was valuable to Fusion GPS. It’s akin to a campaign looking to investigate an opponent’s history of real estate deals in Mexico: Hiring a Mexican firm that’s familiar with the available records would be perfectly legal, if the firm were paid with legally raised campaign contributions.

“I think there is something fundamentally different about the interference when it comes from a foreign government, as opposed to a foreign national individual or even business,” Noble added. “The campaign finance law doesn’t explicitly make that distinction, but it does implicitly show up in some FEC decisions regarding individuals. For example, a foreign national individual can undertake volunteer activity for a campaign, while a government can’t.”

Bauer noted that, since foreign nationals aren’t entitled to the same constitutional protections as Americans, it was rare for the campaign prohibitions to be tested. But the question of whether even a small contribution to a campaign could be made by a foreign national was at the center of Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012. In that case, a D.C. Circuit Court panel determined that such contributions could not be allowed because “it is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government.”

The majority opinion in that case was written by Brett Kavanaugh.

LINK

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
a reply to: BlackJackal

Either way I don’t see how Trump is the bad guy here

Uh, he was colluding with a foreign government to assist him get elected. There is an email that states Russia is working with him. That is illegal. Are you really that ignorant?

This is hard evidence that he was working with Russia. What evidence do you have that Clinton was working with Russia? If not, guess what it's just hearsay.

a reply to: BlackJackal

So paying foreigners for dirt on your opponent is ok, but getting it for free is not? Hahahaha!!!

So how do we know don jr wasnt willing to pay the russian he met for the dirt if it had been presented?

And it wasnt just russian nationals giving hillarys team dirt, it was Kremlin officials.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
a reply to: BlackJackal

Either way I don’t see how Trump is the bad guy here

Uh, he was colluding with a foreign government to assist him get elected. There is an email that states Russia is working with him. That is illegal. Are you really that ignorant?

This is hard evidence that he was working with Russia. What evidence do you have that Clinton was working with Russia? If not, guess what it's just hearsay.

according to you, had trump just paid the kremlin officials, it would be legal to work with them to get elected. hahahaha!

We have evidence that Hillary and the dnc paid a company to have a foreign spy get dirt from Kremlin officials on trump.

We alos know that a hillary person worked with the government of Ukraine to get dirt on trump as well.

But thats all cool by you, right?

In addition, we have

a reply to: BlackJackal

Collusion is not a legal term.

a reply to: BlackJackal

The article goes on:

“The statute’s written very, very broadly,” said Bob Bauer, a former White House counsel under Barack Obama who now teaches at New York University Law School. “It applies to promises of support — promises express or implied. It applies to independent expenditures, meaning those with express advocacy. It applies to any expenditure, meaning those that may not be express advocacy expenditures but are for the purpose of influencing the federal election. It applies to disbursements. It is extremely broad.”

Kind of cuts the article at the knees if you apply the opinion to both sides. If that weren't enough:

“Paying a foreign national fair market value for opposition research is generally not illegal,” Noble wrote. “It is considered a commercial transaction, which is not a contribution.” Clinton’s campaign had paid Fusion GPS directly; it’s a campaign expenditure, not a campaign contribution. Since it’s not a contribution, the FEC allows it.

That also falls apart when Steele finally went on record about his stance on politics in the US:
www.newsweek.com...

Let there be no mistake that Steele wasn't just some hired researcher.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: BlackJackal

So paying foreigners for dirt on your opponent is ok, but getting it for free is not? Hahahaha!!!

So how do we know don jr wasnt willing to pay the russian he met for the dirt if it had been presented?

And it wasnt just russian nationals giving hillarys team dirt, it was Kremlin officials.

If you can't see the difference between hiring a company for opposition research and secretly working directly with a foreign government and then lying about it, I can't help you.

a reply to: BlackJackal

I see a meaningless platitude at the bottom of an emailing accusing Trumps opposition of wrongdoing.
I write them all the time, “I look forward to working with you”, “I’m sure this will be a successful endeavour for all involved”, “my colleagues and I excited to help..... reach the next level in its continued expansion” etc etc

Why is that part more important than the dirt on Hillary? or if there was never any dirt why aren’t you concerned that this was a blatant set up?

So which do you think, set up or Russia knows where Hilldawgs skeletons are?

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: BlackJackal

So paying foreigners for dirt on your opponent is ok, but getting it for free is not? Hahahaha!!!

So how do we know don jr wasnt willing to pay the russian he met for the dirt if it had been presented?

And it wasnt just russian nationals giving hillarys team dirt, it was Kremlin officials.

If you can't see the difference between hiring a company for opposition research and secretly working directly with a foreign government and then lying about it, I can't help you.

If you cant see the differnce between hearing out a person who says they have dirt on your opponent, offering them no quid pro quo or anything of the sort, and getting no dirt whatsoever.

Vs. paying a firm that has been hred by those very same russian nationals, to get a foreign spy to get dirt on your opponent from russian officials, then using that dirt and lying about being the one who paid for it for a year, I cant help you.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: BlackJackal

So paying foreigners for dirt on your opponent is ok, but getting it for free is not? Hahahaha!!!

So how do we know don jr wasnt willing to pay the russian he met for the dirt if it had been presented?

And it wasnt just russian nationals giving hillarys team dirt, it was Kremlin officials.

If you can't see the difference between hiring a company for opposition research and secretly working directly with a foreign government and then lying about it, I can't help you.

If were to follow your premise, you would need to provide proof to both. We only have proof of half your occasion, can you guess which? Hint: I made it bold for you.

a reply to: BlackJackal

There is no such person in Russia. The "Crown Prosecutor" is not a position that exist in that country. It is not illegal that I am aware of to have back channel communications with another country, if that was the wished for outcome. We have had back channel communications with North Korea for years since we have no Emabassy there. The meeting in question was rather low level and apparently about adoption laws and nothing to do with any dirt.

Least we forget that the dossier on Trump was written by a foreign former spy, who relied on other spies from Russia in order to get that information, none of which has ever proved to be truthful. There was an attempt to get "dirt" on Trump, the information was paid for. This seems to be different than what occurred at the meeting with the Russian lawyer with Jr. No money exchanging hands was discussed nor did it occur.

Money was paid by parties for dirt on a political opponent, money to at least 2 different foreign entities, and possibly a third source. This would be meddling in our elections by foreign countries and it was not Trump but was to gain information against him.

As much as some wish Trump to be found to have been dirty dealing with foreigners, those actually dirty dealing are not involved with Trump, but instead with another political opponent. Perhaps this needs to be investigated. Keep in mind that members of our press were involved, members of a political opponents organization, and some circumstantial evidence that actual members of our own government were involved.

www.washingtonpost.com... n

a reply to: Grambler

I've never got the whole perjury thing. Lawyers, politicians and heck just about everyone stretches the truth, leave out details and outright lies. It's a shame that when we lie to a lawyer, politician or judge we get in trouble. It seems to be one of those chickens*** laws they throw at you when they got nothing else.

It's like that El Chapo lawyer told the jurors that El Chapo wouldn't kill them and they were supposed to believe that.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: BlackJackal

So paying foreigners for dirt on your opponent is ok, but getting it for free is not? Hahahaha!!!

So how do we know don jr wasnt willing to pay the russian he met for the dirt if it had been presented?

And it wasnt just russian nationals giving hillarys team dirt, it was Kremlin officials.

If you can't see the difference between hiring a company for opposition research and secretly working directly with a foreign government and then lying about it, I can't help you.

Ok...so if I wanted to kill someone, instead of doing it myself, I just hire someone who hires someone else to do the job and I'm free and clear...right?

a reply to: Grambler

hit the nail on the head here sir. Equal justice is something that would go a LOOOOOOOOOOONG way to unification.

Seeing the hippocricy of this drives the anger.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
a reply to: BlackJackal

Either way I don’t see how Trump is the bad guy here

Uh, he was colluding with a foreign government to assist him get elected. There is an email that states Russia is working with him. That is illegal. Are you really that ignorant?

This is hard evidence that he was working with Russia. What evidence do you have that Clinton was working with Russia? If not, guess what it's just hearsay.

You hava to provide proof, opinions are not facts. There is no email that states that, Jo cox user fell for that and seeing you lap it up shows your ignorance.

This isn't hard evidence. The letter was written in that manner to get the attentions of people, hence the lamguage and custom used. This was known and considered a nothing burger.

You fool, lmfao.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: BlackJackal

*ahem*

§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

GPS Fusion didn't make a donation or contribution to the Clinton Campaign. Fusion GPS were hired to performed a service, and were paid. It was a legal business transaction, not a donation or contribution.

During the Republican primaries, a research firm called Fusion GPS was hired by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website, to unearth potentially damaging information about Mr. Trump. The Free Beacon — which was funded by a major donor supporting Mr. Trump’s rival for the party’s nomination, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida — told Fusion GPS to stop doing research on Mr. Trump in May 2016, as Mr. Trump was clinching the Republican nomination.

After Mr. Trump secured the nomination, Fusion GPS was hired on behalf of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the D.N.C. by their law firm, Perkins Coie, to compile research about Mr. Trump, his businesses and associates — including possible connections with Russia. It was at that point that Fusion GPS hired Mr. Steele, who has deep sourcing in Russia, to gather information.

www.nytimes.com...


Nothing illegal to see here.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So they got indirect solicited information...



Right