Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the latest “smoking gun” of obstruction in the form of Trump tweets. There continues to be a categorical refusal of many to acknowledge the implications of the interpretation being advanced to implicate Trump. There is also a failure to acknowledge that the Clinton campaign received more information was Russian sources, including Russian intelligence figures. The difference is the Clinton people were smart enough to use a cut out in the form of a former British spy.
While advocates continue to maintain that agreeing to go to a meeting to review promised evidence of crimes is a federal election violation, no case like this has ever resulted in a conviction that I know of. Indeed, I do not know of any case remotely similar to this case as being brought. The First Amendment implications should bar any such prosecution.
Here is the column:
President Trump has ignited yet another firestorm with a tweet admitting that the meeting in Trump Tower between Russians and his son, Donald Trump Jr., was an effort to gather dirt on Hillary Clinton. It contradicts the statement that Trump released to the media in 2016.
CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota and others declared that the tweet makes a criminal charge against Trump an “open and shut case.” It does not. It is not even compelling evidence of a crime, because it is based on an erroneous interpretation of federal election laws. What is most alarming is the failure, again, to consider the implications of radically expanding the scope of such laws just to bag Trump or his family at any cost.
Early on Sunday morning, Trump tweeted, “Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics — and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!” At the outset, there are a couple glaring problems with these public statements.First, this is not “fake news” but serious news created by Trump and his team in issuing a clearly misleading statement to the New York Times, then issuing a false statement denying that Trump drafted the statement to the media. Trump attorney Jay Sekulow stated categorically that Trump had no role in issuing the statement that the meeting was only about “a program about the adoption of Russian children.” Sekulow belatedly addressed that over the weekend with the equivalent of a shrug and a statement that “in a situation like this, over time, facts develop.” He added, “That is what investigations do.” The problem is that Sekulow is not investigating his client but supposedly talking to him. The facts do not develop from a “no” to a “yes.” The answer simply changed.
Second, the president is only partially correct in saying that the meeting with Trump Jr. is “done all the time in politics.” The media has largely ignored that Hillary Clinton and her campaign spent a huge amount of money to fund the efforts of former British spy Christopher Steele to gather dirt on Trump, including information from the Russian government and intelligence figures. All of the outcries and expressions of shock by Democratic leaders over the Trump Tower meeting ignores the more extensive contacts and efforts by the Clinton campaign.
However, this particular meeting is not “done all the time” because it was uniquely dumb. Trump Jr. pulled Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafortand Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner into a meeting with unknown participants connected to the Russian government in Trump Tower as members of the media meandered around downstairs. The irony is that the Clintons showed how this is “done all the time” with cutouts and third parties like Steele. Indeed, despite denials during and after the campaign, the Clinton team only admitted to funding the dossier after the media stumbled onto the paper trail long after the election. When caught, they simply declared it was done all the time as “opposition research.”
The point is that only amateurs would take a meeting after a cryptic email from a music promoter about having Russian government evidence. They should have informed the FBI and used lawyers as surrogates. They should have done many things other than assemble the Trump triumvirate and walk blindly into that meeting. If stupidity were a crime, Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner would serve life sentences for doing so. However, crimes are defined by acts and levels of intent. More importantly, courts narrowly construe such definitions to protect the public from ambiguous rules that prosecutors can twist to indict anyone at any time.
Take the crime being proclaimed as “open and shut.” Before Camerota came to this conclusion, the CNN anchors discussed federal election laws that make it a “crime for any person to solicit, accept, or receive, anything of value from a foreign person or U.S. political campaign for the purpose of influencing any elections for federal office.” Thus, if Trump Jr. was willing to review evidence of criminal conduct by Clinton, it must be a type of foreign campaign contribution and, therefore, a federal crime.
Such logic is so inescapable that Camerota responded, “I mean, what more really is there to talk about after that one?” The answer is “a lot more.” The Russians setting up the meeting said their government had evidence of criminal conduct connected to the Clinton Foundation soliciting illegal donations. According to witnesses, Trump Jr. asked for the promised evidence but Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya said she did not have it and only wanted to talk about Magnitsky Act limitations on Russian adoptions. The meeting ended shortly thereafter.
If the Russians had evidence of criminal conduct by Hillary Clinton, her campaign or her family foundation, the Trump campaign had every reason to want to know about it. That is precisely what the Clinton campaign spent millions to do, talking to Russians and other foreigners investigating Trump. Indeed, under this interpretation of federal election laws, Clinton and her surrogates would be equally guilty in using a former foreign spy to gather information on Trump from foreign sources, including Russians.
Consider the implications of what the critics are suggesting. It would mean treating information as a form of political contribution as no different from money, for purposes of a criminal charge, even information about criminal acts by an election candidate. That would mean administrations could prosecute political opponents for merely attending meetings with foreign individuals to discuss the criminal conduct of a sitting American president. Democratic politicians could be charged if they reviewed evidence of alleged bribes or quid pro quos by Trump.
Indeed, it could be any foreign source, since the law is ambiguous. Does that not include foreign organizations like environmental and other public interest groups? How about journalists or lawyers sharing evidence of crimes by powerful politicians? Fortunately, courts likely would reject such an interpretation as a major threat to First Amendment freedoms of speech and even the press. So why are so many journalists and activists blind to implications of such an expansion? The answer is rage. We live in the age of rage, from Trump tweets to cable news crusades.
The latest media frenzy is part of the Newtonian principles that now guide both politics and journalism: “To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction.” However, journalists and lawyers are trained to avoid immediate involuntary reactions, particularly when the potential costs are so prohibitive. Responding to a sweeping political tweet with a sweeping legal interpretation is neither equal nor wise. In the end, the Trump Tower controversy is not based on “fake news” as claimed by the president, but the federal crime alleged by the media is based on fake law.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
I love how the so-called journalists over at CNN and MSNBC become legal experts when it comes to Trump. Then they become completely unhinged when they bring on ol’ time liberal lawyer Alan Dershowitz and begin attacking him when he starts telling them that Trump didn’t do anything illegal. As has already been pointed out, they will do anything to bag Trump, his family and cohorts. 20 months into Trump’s administration and they are no closer now than they were in January 2017.
I’ve seen Mr. Dershowitz on CNN several times.
Each time he was treated with the greatest respect and deference.
The arguments between himself and Jeffery Toobin are both fascinating and enlightening, just the sort of colloquy a news program should be offering.
(music- to tune of I’m Henry The Eighth, I am I am..0
I’m Hillary The 8th I am.
Hillary The 8th I am I am.
I got married to the jerk next door.
He’s been farting for years before.
But it’s all about Trump’s tweeting.
It wouldn’t be a Willie or a Fred.
For there ain’t no scam like tweeting.
Trump the Frump at tweets.
plus one like
So we have two campaigns interested in gathering opposition research on each other. The Trump team goes the old fashioned route after being contacted by Veselnitskaya and sets up a meeting in Trump tower. The meeting is a bust. The Clinton team goes the modern lawfare route aided by Obama’s DOJ/FBI and pays for a foreign spy’s dossier, uses the unverified dossier to secure warrants from FISC to spy on the Trump campaign, leaks the dossier to the media. And with the full energy of the FBI (Crossfire Hurricane), our secret FISA court, spies (CHI) and the media, Clinton wi…oops, Trump wins.
Wait, what!? How in the world did Trump’s Keystone Kops outwit Clinton’s (Obama’s) professionals? Surely it was the Russians. They rigged the voting machin…um, no. They meddled on social media and changed the minds of 52 million voters. Nope. I know, they hired Pakistanis to leak…no again. They tricked Podesta into using an idiotic password, no. They hacked Clinton and the DNC emails, yeah, that must be it. They made the entire Clinton machine exchange incriminating emails that Wikileaks got a hold of that were made public. All of course from the Russians. They convinced the Clinton camp to avoid campaigning in states like Ohio, Wisconsin, etc. Damn those Russians.
And 2 years and millions of taxpayer dollars later, Mueller and his entourage (looking only at one of the two campaigns) have found creepy lawyers, process crimes, 12 meddling Russians and decades-old financial dealings having nothing to do with Trump or the election.
More popcorn please.
“uses the unverified dossier to secure warrants from FISC ”
Are you implying that the dossier was the ONLY basis for getting the warrants? That notion has been explicitly refuted.
The fact it was used, unverified and undisclosed as to who paid for it is significant. That has not been refuted.
Yes and no, Ollie….
“The FBI disclosed to the court that Steele was paid by people seeking to discredit Trump. But the FBI viewed Steele as credible.
“They dealt with the Steele stuff in an extensive footnote with bolded language,” Banks said. The note didn’t disclose that the dossier was paid for by Democrats because the document didn’t use any names or identities. It called Trump “Candidate 1″ even after he was elected president. But the note did say that the dossier appeared to be funded by people seeking to discredit Trump.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/why-team-trump-wrong-about-carter-page-dossier-secret-warrant-n893666
But the FBI viewed Steele as credible.
That would be the same FBI that had considered Strzok, Page, Ohr, etc. as unbiased patriots. That closed an investigation of national security importance because they concluded she didn’t mean to do it. That FBI?
Ollie, I was responding to your assertion that
“The fact it was used, unverified and undisclosed as to who paid for it is significant. That has not been refuted.”
These other assertions are extraneous to that.
It’s a talking point of the right that the dossier is unverified. No one outside of the investigators knows what parts of the dossier may or may not have been verified.
And, yes, the right-wing accusations were refuted in the FISA warrant.
Annie – Steele knows he did not verify anything. We know that. At best the inserts from Podesta and company passed through the State Department and added to the dossier might and I say might be verified. Again, the footnote, which I have read, does not tell the court that either the DNC or Clinton paid for the dossier. At no point do they say that they fired Steele for flogging the dossier to the press. Nor do they tell the court that Steele is the source for the Isikoff article that is used as well. They don’t tell the court that Downer is connected to the Clinton Foundation. They do not tell the court that Carter Page has always cooperated with the FBI about his trips to Russia.
In fact, the FBI/DoJ lied under oath to the court. Lied, lied, lied.
Paul,
Is there any doubt Trump would have already been impeached if he and the RNC had:
– rigged the primary
– laundered funds from the RNC into his campaign
– hired Fusion GPS/Steele to gather a salacious dossier on Clinton using perhaps Russian sources
– used that information to get the FBI to secure FISA warrants to spy on the Clinton campaign
– convinced the FBI to abandon it’s investigation into Trump’s clear violation of federal information security laws
He would have been run out on a rail with a unanimous vote in Congress with the full support of the American people. This would be treated as a national tragedy. Traitor would be tattooed across his forehead, and every one of his co-conspirators would be facing the full wrath of our criminal justice system. The Trump Dynasty would come to an end.
But somehow, we come back to reality and Clinton is still the victim and Trump the accused. Go figure.
“Would it be possible to speak later today please? We’re very concerned by the Grassley letter and it’s possible implications for us, our operations and our sources. We need some reassurances,” Steele wrote in a March 7, 2017 text message to Bruce Ohr, who was the deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice at the time.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/08/christopher-steele-was-concerned-about-senate-investigating-dossier/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=3126040f7b-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-3126040f7b-79248369
It wasn’t Steele’s job to verify and he has never claimed that he verified anything. It was raw intel. I’m referring to information that intelligence agencies, US and abroad, have that may or may not corroborate it . And we are not privy to that.
Yeah, two years into this mess and no one in the public “knows what parts of the dossier may or may not have been verified”
I generally agree with that part of Annie’s comment which I have in quotation marks.
As far as “no one outside of the investigators knows”, it is unknown what the investigators know or do not know.
And there’s a reason for that; two years after the investigations started, “the investigators” have basically left the public in the dark with respect to where they are at, and where they are going.
That’s the reason why support for Mueller, confidence in him, has been slipping.
It’s the reason that Trump, Giuliani, and others have exploited this huge opening that a mute, stone-faced Special Counsel has created for them.
This isn’t a matter of “taking points” or “right wing accusations”.
Increasingly, the public has recognised that Mueller was a poor choice to begin with, that he’s cut off the public from any information about where he’s at on the “collusion” issue, or where he’s heading with it.
And after two years, they’re getting sick of this protracted state of limbo.
And all of the “In Mueller I trust” mantras, recited by some, don’t make the problems I’ve commented on magically go away.
the notion that the average FISA warrant is poorly supported and this one was no exception, has not been refuted
The President has said and done a number of very bad things, some of the unconstitutional, some illegal, and some just plain stupid, but some respond with but Obama………or but, but, Hillary………… And just maybe there is an investigation of Hillary. or maybe not.
The President has said and done a number of very bad things, some of the unconstitutional, some illegal,
It should not be difficult then for you to identify those unconstitutional and illegal things. Ready, go.
Patience, Olly😠…..we’ve only been waiting for two years😊😆.
This strategy by the Left to blurt out their feelings as if they are fact is so damn childish.
No collusion, no obstruction just masterful projection and illusion from the corrupt FBI, DOJ, DNC, MSM and the Wicked Witch.
You forgot to put your fingers in your ears and run around yelling, I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you.
If we watch the demonstrations of that activity that Fishwings has been putting on, maybe more people would remember to mimic Fishwings.
Z couldn’t put his fingers in his ears because his hair was on fire.
Give him a break, Fishy.
Well, there you have it. Even JT has run out of excuses so he throws the last lines of a lawyer that knows they are beat…In this case……But, but Hillary.
Uh oh lefty loons like Fishy turning on Turley once he stops feeding them the hopeful hype they so crave. They thought Turley blog was safe place for their klefty hope but the Almighty Turley who fed them hope for so long has just ended the game. To all you whiny sore loser HRC supporters: “I beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden”.
Good ‘en:
Do you even read JT’s posts? Or does it take to long to interpret from Russian to English?
Nyet.
Fishy:
“Well, there you have it. Even JT has run out of excuses so he throws the last lines of a lawyer that knows they are beat…In this case……But, but Hillary.”
******************************
I love your boxed-in world where overt hypocrisy need not show its face. So restrained is it, that even learned opposition is banished as well.
Great place, but awfully small.
Logic not whataboutism leads to question as to why DNC/HRC not interviewed by Muler team as part investigation into Russian meddling in 2016 election. Confirmed meeting(s) with Ukrainians in Summer 2016 and confirmed dollars changed hands with British and Russian nationals for dirt on opponent. Simple logic.
I’d say favoritism but logic fits, too.
Thank you Jon Turley for pointing out obvious below. You forgot to mention DNC meeting(s) with Ukrainians in Summer 2016. Why has left media not been curious about absence of interviews of HRC/DNC by Muler team?
“The media has largely ignored that Hillary Clinton and her campaign spent a huge amount of money to fund the efforts of former British spy Christopher Steele to gather dirt on Trump, including information from the Russian government and intelligence figures. All of the outcries and expressions of shock by Democratic leaders over the Trump Tower meeting ignores the more extensive contacts and efforts by the Clinton campaign.”
“It contradicts the statement that Trump released to the media in 2016.”
****************************************
Which 2016 statement? Seems if you’re going to call a guy a liar you ought to provide the lies. We all know the press will twist facts to support its propaganda but The NY Times can’t find this 2016 statement and neither did I but I’m always open to new info. The closest we have is a 2017 (not 2016) statement by Team Trump that Russian adoptions were “primarily discussed” No mention in that statement about the impetus for or reason why the meeting was called.
When asked however, the infamous 2016 meeting between Trump Jr and the Russian lawyer was always billed as an info gathering session on Hillary that turned into a policy discussion on adoptions. Here’s Don Jr’s statement in 2017 that was widely believed to be dictated by his dad: “I was asked to have a meeting by an acquaintance I knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant with an individual who I was told might have information helpful to the campaign. I was not told her name prior to the meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to attend, but told them nothing of the substance. We had a meeting in June 2016. After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information. She then changed subjects and began discussing the adoption of Russian children and mentioned the Magnitsky Act.” (CNBC 7/9/2017).
Then in September of 2017, Don Jr. Provided written testimony to the Senate which read in part on page 2, that information to be supplied at the meeting was “incriminate Hillary (Clinton) and her dealings with Russia.” And that the information and documents would be “helpful to the campaign.” You can read it for yourself: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3988519-Donald-Trump-Jr-Statement-to-Senate-Judiciary.html
So Trump’s recent tweet provides no contradictory — or even new —-information. It’s just more grist for the Impeach Trump crowd. Folks really are gullible in the face of a corrupt press. Call it collective amnesia.
The statement about adoptions that Putin dictated to Trump at the G20 Spouses’ Dinner on July 7th, 2017 and Trump dictated to Trump Jr. while flying home from Hamburg on Air Force One. That statement.
Please provide the proof.
There’s no proof for Putin’s dictation of that statement to Trump. Unless you’re willing to entertain the notion that “adoptions” and “Magnitsky” are the argot that the Russians use for sanctions relief.
So Putin dictated the Trump Jr. press statement? Have we jumped the shark yet on all this Russia hysteria?
I will answer my own question: yes lefty loons have now jumped the shark on Russia hysteria. So maybe it is time for “….this one to go home…”
On April 6, 2017, Kushner filed a revised security clearance form in which he reported a meeting with Veselnitskaya. Unlike Kushner, Trump Jr. and Manafort were not required to disclose foreign contacts since they did not subsequently serve in the Trump administration.
On July 7, 2017, President Trump had a conversation with President Putin at the G20 Spouses’ Dinner at the G20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany.
On July 8, 2017 The New York Times first reported the meeting with “a Russian lawyer who has connections to the Kremlin”, arranged by Trump Jr. and including Kushner and Manafort. The information was attributed to “people familiar with the documents” and confirmed by representatives of Trump Jr. and Kushner. On the same day, Trump Jr. released a statement saying the June 2016 meeting had been a “short introductory meeting” about adoption and “not a campaign issue”.
The next day it was further reported that emails setting up the meeting did not mention Russian adoptions or the Magnitsky Act; instead, Goldstone had told Trump Jr. the meeting would provide the Trump campaign with negative information about Clinton. Goldstone also wrote this offer was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump-helped along by Aras and Emin”. Trump Jr issued another statement in which he acknowledged that he had gone to the meeting expecting information about Hillary Clinton.
On July 10, 2017, White House spokesperson Sanders said the president had learned of the meeting only “in the last couple of days”.
On July 11, it was reported that the original statement released by Trump Jr. on July 8 had been drafted by presidential advisers aboard Air Force One on the way home from the G20 summit in Germany, and that it had been approved by President Trump— an account confirmed in a July 31 report by The Washington Post.
L4Yoga still enables David Benson – did you get your 4 am document drop?
Go ask Annie/Inga/Diane/R. Lien/anonymous. And while you’re at it, find out what happened to Dr. Benson–STAT.
L4Yoga still enables David Benson – Benson is on his own, I am not his keeper. He supposedly has a son who can look out for him.
Dr. Benson is back on the board, today. No thanks to you, Pual.
What Mr. Simple Logic, Tab Lockheed, should learn from the timeline posted above is that Trump is necessarily claiming that he didn’t know very much, if anything at all, about his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, revising Kushner’s security clearance form on April 6th, 2017, to admit having had contact with Natalia Veselnitskaya at the Trump Tower meeting because, otherwise, Trump would have known about the Trump Tower meeting on or before April 6th, 2017, when Kushner revised his security clearance form.
Mr. Simple Logic, Tab Lockheed, should also realize that the above is but a subtle variation on the same highly improbable claim of Trump’s supposed ignorance of the Trump Tower meeting that Sloppy Steve Bannon scoffed at with his infamous remark about JUMOs [Junior Moscow Officers]. When the story Trump tells keeps being revised with retractions of previous claims that had denied what was subsequently admitted, one ought not to speak so flippantly about lefty loons supposedly jumping the shark instead of Trump Troupers being so much more mere chum chucked overboard to whip the sharks into a feeding frenzy.
Bill Martin – don’t you think that if Putin had dictated the statement, it would have a Russian accent? 😉
If, and only if, Putin had dictated the statement to a Russian speaking stenographer.
BTW, during that same conversation between Putin and Trump at the G20 Spouses’ Dinner, Putin almost certainly revealed to Trump that Putin had had a hand in leaking to the press the news that forced Jared Kushner to revise his security clearance form to admit contact with Veselnitskaya and forcing Trump Jr. and Kushner to leak the story of the Trump Tower meeting The NYT. It’s probably at that point that Putin told Trump how to manage the “story” with the “adoptions dodge,” knowing full well that he, Vlad, could then force the subsequent recantation of the “adoptions dodge” cover story, as well. And to think that you’re all worried about Mueller. Putin has had Trump by the short hairs since at least the G20 Summit in Hamburg and probably since long before that event.
L4Yoga still enables David Benson – is the CIA feeding you this stuff? You are living in Cuckoo Land.
The NYT does not do investigative reporting. Haberman and Schmidt practice access journalism. They could not have uncovered the story about the Trump Tower meeting without Trump Jr., Kushner and Trump, himself, leaking that story to The NYT. The story was attributed to “people familiar with the documents”–meaning, presumably, either or both Kushner’s revised security clearance form and the Kremlin-fabricated evidence implicating Browder and the Ziff brothers that Trump Jr. accepted and received from Veselnitskaya at the Trump Tower meeting, exactly as Goldstone had promised in his email. Trump Jr. and Kushner also confirmed The NYT story before The NYT published it.
There’s no way they leak that story without having been pressured to do so. The Russians who attended the Trump Tower meeting were the only ones capable of applying such pressure to Trump Jr. and Kushner. Those Russians report to, and take orders from, Vladimir Putin who had a conversation with Trump at the G20 Spouses’ Dinner exactly one day before The NYT first reported the story of the Trump Tower meeting.
I don’t need the CIA to feed me “this stuff.”
“The New York Times does not do investigative reporting”.
Here are at least 4 people list as INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS FOR THE NY TIMES:
Mike Mcintire
Jodi Kantor
Megan Twohey
Eric Lipton
People can easily verify this. At least 2 of these reporters have won prestigious awards for investigative reporting.
The normal pattern when called on her bull**** claims is for L4D to deflect, change the subject, etc.
I’ve been through this same kind of crap with her so many times that I know the drill.
Now for those members of her fan club here, you can believe L4D’s patently false claim and forget about it.
You just have to BELIEVE what she writes, check no further, and rely on that faith.
And that belief may motivate a few to encourage her continued distortions and lies, IF they figure it’s for “a good enough cause”.
I can’t get any more specific about why I view her as a gasbag and a propagandist than I have here, and in the past.
Those in her fan club, and her enablers, are not far behind her.
L4Yoga still enables David Benson – do you know how many Pulitzers the Times has won for investigative reporting. They get one almost annually. And yes, the CIA does a 4 am doc drop to the NYT and WaPo with pre-written stories that are CYA. Just wondered if you had the code to the Cloud account, too.
Mespo,… She don’t need no stinkin proof.
Badges, neither! 😀
mespo – if you that, you need serious dental work. 😉
And the Professor sends a javelin flying right into Late4Yoga’s abdomen. We can hear Nelson Rockefeller’s voice now: “I luvvvv it….”.
Turley hurls Nerf darts–only. L4D has a cast-iron stomach.
And head, too!
Nerf is harmless against Nerf.
Yes Teaching, lefty loons on this blog are flailing this morning like wounded ducks shot by Turley this morning. Often times Jon Turley likes to give hope to the lefty loons – perhaps to generate blog clicks – but this morning he did land the metaphorical javelin you refer to. Perhaps Jon Turley is getting tired of the hype being fed by left media to lefty loons and decided to throw down the hammer this morning upon return from summer vacation.
Here’s what the law says:
52 USC 30121
(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.
(b) “Foreign national” defined As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
Here’s what Turley wrote, “Before Camerota came to this conclusion, the CNN anchors discussed federal election laws that make it a “crime for any person to solicit, accept, or receive, anything of value from a foreign person or U.S. political campaign for the purpose of influencing any elections for federal office.”
Once again, the law says:
(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;
While Turley wrote, “. . . for the purpose of influencing any elections for federal office.”
I have a much better understanding of the relevant laws thanks to L4D’s interpretations and explanations.
A set of indictments has been issued involving the so-called Russian troll factory.
Now if it becomes known that Trump PAID FOR that Russian operation, it is not a foreign “contribution”, but rather a “campaign expense”.
Mueller needs to know these things, as do all future campaigns going forward.
Had you read the relevant statutes I posted you would have seen that electioneering communications are primarily radio and TV advertisements, including cable and satellite. Almost everything else is excepted from the meaning of the term “electioneering communication.” Therefore, I presume that the trolling campaign from the IRA would also be excepted from the meaning of the term electioneering communication.
As for your example, consider this: Had the Trump campaign paid the IRA to troll the 2016 election in Trump’s favor and against Clinton, then the Trump campaign would have had to have reported that campaign expenditure to the FEC. Had the Trump campaign duly reported such a campaign expenditure to the FEC, then the American people could have been alerted to the hypothetical fact that Trump had been paying The Russians to wage their information warfare campaign in favor of Trump and against Clinton. The American people could then have made an informed decision as to whether or not they had wanted to vote for a candidate who had hired Russian trolls to support his candidacy while attacking his opponent.
And so it comes to pass that there really is a distinction in the law between a campaign contribution from a foreign national versus a campaign expenditure to a foreign national. Thus, when Turley argues that Clinton supposedly solicited an illegal foreign campaign contribution from Christopher Steele and his Russian informants, Turley is necessarily arguing that Clinton PAID a foreign national to make a CONTRIBUTION to the Clinton campaign. Now ask yourself: Who PAYS anyone for any CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION? Then ask yourself again: Who PAYS anyone for any CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION that was not used in connection with a federal election for any ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS??? The answers to those questions should clarify Krazy Kat Rambler’s confusion on this subject. Turley’s confusion on that same subject appears to have become a permanent condition.
The American people were not “alerted to the fact” that the DNCHillary/ Campaign were paying a British subject to have his Russian contacts get information from the contacts’ informants to be fed back to the paid hired gun in England.
Additionally, opposition research is supposed to be presented as a seperate expense, not roled into the generic category of “legal fees”.
Not only did those involved in funding the Russian Dossier fail to disclose this “campaign expenditure” before the election, “They lied, and they lied with sanctimony, for a year” after the existance of the Russian Dossier came to light.
I don’t expect a direct response from L4D gjven past experience; I’m just pointing out how “selective” she is in the standards and requirements that she herself set up for so-called “campaign expenses”.
Yeah, that really “clarifies” things, in the same way that L4D typically “clarifies” the issuesm
You’re still clinging to Turley’s hopelessly defunct notion that there’s supposedly no “legal” difference between an “election” versus “an FBI investigation”. Federal election laws on campaign expenditures do not require reporting opposition research that is not used for the purpose of electioneering communications, least of all opposition research that was promptly and duly reported to the FBI. The teat at which you are suckling is petrified.
L4Yoga still enables David Benson – so Steele is a cooked goose if he ever comes to the US, is that what you are saying?
Whatever charge you cook up for Steele’s goose once he gets here, it won’t be an illegal foreign campaign contribution. Tyr again. It’s a big book, the USC is.
Turley also wrote, “That would mean administrations could prosecute political opponents for merely attending meetings with foreign individuals to discuss the criminal conduct of a sitting American president. Democratic politicians could be charged if they reviewed evidence of alleged bribes or quid pro quos by Trump.”
While Turley had previously written, ““. . . for the purpose of influencing any elections for federal office.”
And while the law, itself, says, “. . . in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;”
So here we have Turley imagining overly-strained misinterpretations of federal election laws for the sake of misconstruing a plain reading of the actual text of 52 USC 30121 (2) solicitation of an illegal foreign campaign contribution as though the law, itself, as written, were somehow just another overly-strained misinterpretation of the law, itself, as written. That smacks of both desperation and fear-mongering.
I don’t know about “Turley imagining over-strained misinterpretations of federal election law”…
But I do see L4D overstraining to justify the involvement of foreign nationals in American elections.
Turley is pretending that he can’t tell the difference between a contribution versus an expenditure. Turley is pretending that he can’t tell the difference between an election versus an FBI investigation. Turley is pretending that nothing happened at the Trump Tower meeting because the Trump campaign didn’t get the 30,000 deleted Clinton SoS emails that they were expecting but got, instead, exactly what Rob Goldstone told them they were going to get and to which Don Jr. replied “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the Summer.” On top of all that pretense, Turley is trying to scare Democrats by threatening that they “. . . could be charged if they reviewed evidence of alleged bribes or quid pro quos by Trump.”
BTW, the Trump campaign “unwittingly” got the DNC, DCCC and Podesta emails that the Russians hacked to be published by Wikileaks and DC Leaks. Unless, of course, the Trump campaign got all of those illegal foriegn campaign contributions wittingly. It’s one of those two, for sure.
Wait a second. Let’s read that first prohibition in 52 USC 30121 again:
(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;
Now let’s emphasize the part of that prohibition that may actually have been violated at the Trump Tower meeting:
“. . . [T]o make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal . . . election;”
We already know that there was an express promise made before the Trump Tower meeting. What we might conceivably learn someday is that there might also have been an “implied promise” made at and during the Trump Tower meeting. The four Russians who attended that meeting claimed that Trump Jr. said that his father might revisit the Magnitsky sanctions after he wins the election. Trump Jr. and Rob Goldstone both denied that claim from the Russians by stating that Trump Jr. had told the Russians that they should take up the issue of the Magnitsky sanctions with the Obama administration and that a private citizen such as Trump could not do anything about that issue. Perhaps the distinction was lost in translation. Or perhaps the translator, Samochornov, IIRC, or the other English speaking Russian, Irakly Kaveladze, or both of them are lying about what Trump Jr. said at the meeting. If not, then there may very well have been an implied promise made at the Trump Tower meeting. And the Russians may have interpreted that implied promise as a go ahead signal to leak the hacked DNC, DCCC and Podesta emails to Wikileaks and DC Leaks.
yawn read up
http://www.uky.edu/electionlaw/analysis/foreign-contributions-us-elections
It’s an interesting read, but it’s also irrelevant to the issues that Turley raised in his false equivalency between the Trump Tower meeting and the Steele dossier. The part about Social Welfare Organizations might provide cover for Alexander Torshin, Mariia Butina, Paul Erikson, Chris Ruddy and The National Rifle Association, though.
Thus far what has been established/admitted to is that both parties investigate their opposition(s) using just about any method possible, including foreign governments. This reflects on the sorry state of affairs of US politics and if this or that sacred right can be brought to defend these actions, then no crime.
However, beyond this, there are still questions to be answered and the American people have the right to know exactly what their leaders are all about. The Manafort trial(s) illustrate just how broad a perspective is taken when those working for our candidates get involved with foreign governments. Manafort, aside from his crimes, was instrumental in the establishing of power in Ukraine and at a later date instrumental in running a Presidential campaign. One would think that this requires complete investigation. Trump has mega million business dealings with Russian oligarchs, banks, ?politicians, admits that his campaign viewed the Russians as potentially helpful in clobbering Clinton, and is now President. One would think that this also requires complete investigation.
Thus far, Tump may simply be a lying sack of oligarchical shame; perhaps there is more to this. That’s why Mueller is doing his job, and getting results. It seems that the right’s only argument, in defense of their champion is that he has this or that right to keep stuff that should be public knowledge from the people. Transparency is the key to taking back the country from the oligarchs. Trump has established himself, beyond a shadow of a doubt as the head American oligarch, representing the mega wealthy, corporations, and special interests. I am more than curious to discover what relationships our oligarch(s) have with the Russian oligarch(s).
Isaac,…
I don’t think that there is any mention of Trump or the Trump campaign in the indictments.
That being the case, I don’t think that the Manafort trial tells us anything about the key accusations against Trump.
And it’s often overlooked that Manafort had experience in campaigns and conventions going back to 1976.
I think that Manafort was even in contention to manage McCain’s campaign in 2008.
His political activities and career did not start in the Ukraine….it seems more likely that he saw an opening to cash in on his credentials and knowledge of American politics as an advisor to Yanukovych in the Ukraine.
Firstly, regardless of whether or not there is any mention of Trump etc., Trump’s business is more than likely not much difference than that of Manafort: offshore banks, moving money around, loans called income, income called loans, etc., all defensible until a line gets crossed. Or, defensible because you’re the President and like a king of old, cannot commit a crime?
If information surfaces implicating Trump then so be it. Trump has not been accused of anything thus far. All documents either clearing Trump or implicating him have not yet been seen. Somehow the holder of the most important office in the nation is not required to open his books. When Trump leaves office, he can reveal everything, and if proven guilty of anything, give himself a pardon, and just as when he goes bankrupt from time to time, start over with a clean slate. This is Trump’s modus operand, to skip out on his screwups through bankruptcy court or tie up proceedings in court forever. But, never admit guilt. This is the world of the US President, the office that should be the most responsible to the American people, in fact the most irresponsible. Trump is not Presidential material. The Presidency is not Presidential material.
The privilege that comes from wealth and connections feeds the ego of the Manafort types and Trump types. Does it really matter that the scrutiny created by a scumbag carpetbagger like Trump making it to the Presidency sharpened the radar that caught Manafort?
Secondly, there has never been a President that cried out to be indicted as Trump. Even Nixon comes off looking like a saint when compared to Trump.
issac – Obama should have never pi**ed him off. I think that dinner is where The Donald decided he was going to make Obama hand him the keys to the Oval Office. You think the call Hillary made was hard, think how hard the call Obama made to Hillary was.
Still, there is no criminal there there.
Paul
What is criminal is the system that invites scum like Trump and Clinton to square off for the top job. The electoral process is a three ring circus with no talent just drum rolls, all sizzle and no steak, all hat and no cattle. Trump exemplifies this more than anyone. Trump ran on doing just about the opposite of everything he is now doing. The swamp stinks more than ever. The special interests and oligarchs are sucking big time at America’s teat. Even Reagan wouldn’t have gone this far. Trump is incompetent; that is his crime. In the private sector his incompetence was offset by the silver spoons. Trump’s criminality was offset by legions of lawyers and deals-paid the fines but didn’t admit guilt. There is no blatant criminal here but no President either.
Keep digging Mueller.
At a certain point it starts to look more like “scavenging” rather than “digging”.
That’s why I’ll repeat that time is not on Mueller’s side.
issac – at least our President can keep his eyebrow on. BTW, just saw a video of Trudeau dancing in what appears to be a mock Bollywood-style. If I were the Indian ambassador to Canada I would be sending a sharp note about how insulted my country is.
Federal election laws distinguish between contributions versus expenditures. Expenditures cannot be construed as contributions unless they were so deeply discounted relative to the fair market value of those expenditures as to be, in effect, giveaways. Moreover, expenditures cannot be construed as contributions unless and until they are used for the purpose of electioneering communications. The most common type of electioneering communications are the campaign ads one sees on TV or hears on the radio during election years. And federal election laws already provide numerous exceptions for each and every last First Amendment right that Turley suggests might be imperiled.
Studiously ignoring the distinction between contributions versus expenditures is the distilled essence of the false equivalency that Turley draws between the Trump Tower meeting[contribution] versus the Trump-Russia dossier compiled by Christopher Steele [expenditure]. As it stands today, the only similarity between the dossier and the Trump Tower meeting is that the information obtained from them were not used for any electioneering communications. And that’s the only way that the campaign expenditure for the Trump-Russia dossier could have become the solicitation of an illegal foreign campaign contribution. Conversely, the information obtained from the Trump Tower meeting was never a campaign expenditure to begin with–but a campaign contribution from the get-go. Consequently, the information obtained from the Trump Tower need not have been used in any electioneering communications in order to have “become” an illegal foreign campaign contribution. Because it already was an illegal foreign campaign contribution on the face of it. And the Trump campaign solicited that illegal foreign campaign contribution–most likely without soliciting the legal advice of Trump campaign counsel Don McGahn.
FTR, Mueller has not charged Donald Trump Jr. with solicitation of an illegal foreign campaign contribution.
L4Yoga still enables David Benson – so you turn down a solicitation because it doesn’t exist and it is criminal, but you send someone to Europe to buy dirt and then sell it to the Justice Department and that isn’t illegal?
Had Steele’s information been used in any electioneering communications, the campaign expenditure for that information would have become the solicitation of an illegal foreign campaign contribution. That the information Veselnitskaya presented at the Trump Tower meeting was not used in any electioneering communications would be exculpatory if, and only if, there had been a Trump campaign expenditure made for that information. Federal election laws prohibit “freebies” from foreign nationals. Federal election laws do not prohibit expenditures to foreign nationals unless and until the goods or services received from those foreign nationals are used for the purpose of electioneering communications.
L4Yoga still enables David Benson – Hillary ramped up her attacks in the debates on the Russia issue and Steele passed the dossier to every newspaper he thought would print it before the election. Only one did. The rest could not confirm the information in the dossier. You seem to have conveniently forgotten that.
Newspapers are excepted from 52 USC 30104 (f)(3). Unless you can show that Clinton somehow paid Steele to leak the dossier to the press.
L4Yoga still enables David Benson – Steele had the dossier, what was he supposed to do with it? It was designed to bring Trump down. It does no good if it is just hiding in the FISC as the basis for a warrant. You need it published. You need to ruin Trump. Hence, flogging it to all the papers that were unfit to print. Only one did before the election and its readership is so low it did not make any difference. BTW, that organization is being sued for liable and it is suing the DNC to back up the dossier.
Whose being sued for libel? Where?
52 USC 30104 (f)(3)
(B) Exceptions
The term “electioneering communication” does not include-
(i) a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;
(ii) a communication which constitutes an expenditure or an independent expenditure under this Act;
(iii) a communication which constitutes a candidate debate or forum conducted pursuant to regulations adopted by the Commission, or which solely promotes such a debate or forum and is made by or on behalf of the person sponsoring the debate or forum; or
(iv) any other communication exempted under such regulations as the Commission may promulgate (consistent with the requirements of this paragraph) to ensure the appropriate implementation of this paragraph, except that under any such regulation a communication may not be exempted if it meets the requirements of this paragraph and is described in section 30101(20)(A)(iii) of this title.
L4Yoga still enables David Benson – and you don’t think after the release of the Clinton and Podesta emails that Hillary and the DNC do not control the NYT and WaPo? Don’t you think Buzzfeed got a stiffy when Steele offered them the dossier?
he hasnt forogtten anything. he’s probably making minimum wage spinning this garbage where somebody may read it. i hope he is getting paid, at least. it would be sad if he were doing this for free. me i am just having fun
Compare the following email to the text of 52 USC 30121 posted above and see if you can stop spinning long enough to do the necessary head-scratching:
3 June 2016
Rob Goldstone to Trump Jr
Emin [Agalarov, a Russian pop star represented by Goldstone] just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras [a Moscow-based developer who tried to partner with Trump in a hotel project] this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.
What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
I can also send this info to your father via Rhona [presumably Rhona Graff, Trump’s longtime executive assistant], but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.
darn Russians again here you are spreading their propaganda Spas are you a red commie russky too?
The second sentence of the article here does not make any sense. Or cents.
Look folks: Russian collusion can be an allusion. It has created confusion. Putin is a fruit en. That being said. We need to go forward. By going forward we need to eliminate Russian interference in our elections and government. One thing we can do is identify one or more topics which the Russians contributed information on, or false information on, and then see how many voters changed votes. Did Trump get nominated by the GOP because of some issue sneaked into the election discussions? Did he beat Hillary because voters were falsely moved by Russian information slid into the discussions? Someone please suggest one such issue which tilted the election– either the GOP nomination or the contest between the Tweet and HIllary.
His name should be Donald Tweet not Donald Trump. That being said: he is not a Red, meaning he is not a Communist. Red states are not Communist states. RepubliCons are a far cry from Russians. Perhaps we need some Army McCarthy Hearings on Capitol Hill. Or is it Capital Hill?
PROFESSOR TURLEY ON CHRISTOPHER STEELE:
“The media has largely ignored that Hillary Clinton and her campaign spent a huge amount of money to fund the efforts of former British spy Christopher Steele to gather dirt on Trump, including information from the Russian government and intelligence figures”.
WHAT TURLEY ISN’T SAYING:
Christopher Steele is a recognized expert on Russian affairs. And that is precisely why Steele was commissioned to write a report on Donald Trump. It was widely known that Russian oligarchs were investing in Trump’s company. Which gave rise to suspicions that Trump was laundering their money.
Had Trump not had those odd connections, Christopher Steele would have never factored in the 2016 campaign.
BUYERS CONNECTED TO RUSSIA, or former Soviet Republics, made 86 all-cash sales, totaling $109 million at 10 Trump branded properties in South Florida and New York City.
Transactions such as these are the reason Christopher Steele was hired (indirectly) by the Clinton campaign.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article210477439.html
Peter Hill – Christopher Steele was hired because he supposedly could get the dirt, but he never talked to the people. He talked to the people who talked to the people. His evidence would never be allowed in a trial court. Steele also hated Trump so that made him the perfect person to manufacture evidence if need be. Steele also had access to the MI6 old boys’ network which gave him access to more info.
I have come to think that Britain, as a government, had a hand in the Steele dossier. I cannot prove it. But they are covering for Steele, which makes me suspicious.
PC Schulte,…
It does not seem that Steele is a purely objective, analytical expert, and this may have influenced his approach in gathering and selecting material for the Russian Dossier.
It would be interesting to know for sure what, if anything, the British ( and the Russian) governments knew at the time that Steele was compiling the dossier.
Tom Nash – I think Steele and some of his British intel buddies sat in an apt someplace and typed up the dossier. Some parts were added by Podesta, et al., through the State Department. So, yes, the British knew and approved. That is my opinion.
Has any part of the dossier been shown, as yet, to be clearly fabricated? As I understand it, some parts have been confirmed, other parts not yet confirmed.
Jay S. has sold crack cocaine to neighborhood schoolchildren.
Has that been shown to fabricated?
What parts have been verified? Would you be equally dismissive if the Trump camp paid for a similar dossier on Clinton? Keep in mind the validity of the information allegedly hacked from the Clinton camp and DNC was never refuted; it was simply the means that it became public that has you concerned. Let me put this in better context:
The FBI used a questionable dossier, with undisclosed funding by the Clinton/DNC side of the campaign to FISC to secure warrants to spy on the opposition party and your concern is not how the information was gathered and used, but that the dossier hasn’t been completely debunked. On the other hand, you are concerned how the information was gathered and then disclosed by Wikileaks and unconcerned that information itself has been proven to be completely true.
Do you have any objective standards?
Jay S – I think the parts that have been confirmed are those written by the Podesta group and run through the State Department. There are actually three versions of the dossier so it is hard to tell which one they are talking about. However, they have had since July 2016 to confirm it (2 years now) so what is the holdup? Even Steele has said the accuracy is about 50/50. He said that under oath in a British court. He cannot back up what was given to him since he never met the sources. If the British relied on him as a spy, they picked the wrong guy.
This wasn’t a trial court, PCS. This was a court issuing search warrants. You and Turley can pretend all you want, but warrants are issued based on unverified information from CIs all the time. Here the “unverifed” Steele material was but a part of the material the warrants relied on. Just give up on this dead horse.
hollywood – in the ‘notorious’ footnote Steele is designated as reliable as a source of information.
Yes, and?
hollywood – that was a response to Annie. It only makes sense in that context. 😉
yes they are often based on total crap from CIs and guess what. police FABRICATE cis and put words in their nonexistent mouths to justify warrants
at least in this case they had a real CI making crap up and not just a totally naked lie, just a repeated one. somewhat less egregious
all in all this is a big missed opportunity for “liberals” to talk about the declining protections of the Fourth amendment.
but they usually only care about that when it’s a dope dealer getting pinched.
Christopher Steele is a private businessman who has not been employed by British intelligence for some time.
He has probably not set foot in Russia in at least 20 years.
I have seen conflicting opinions on his actual ability/ expertise as an M-15 operative.
Leaving that aside for the time being, , we don’t know who his contacts were, and in turn, the identity of the sources that the contacts….not Steele, but Steele’s contacts….fed back to Steele.
I don’t know exactly what Steele told the FBI or the media about his confidence in the accuracy of the allegations in the dossiers.
He seems to have been very, very cautious in expressing confidence in that accuracy in civil suit depositions.
These civil proceedings have not been widely covered, and can move at a snail’s pace; but I said here months ago that revelations from these lawsuits can add to whatever investigators or Congressional committees reveal about Steele and the Russian Dossier.
I’m not especially interested in pumping up or tearing down Steele’s overall credentials.
I do think that his ability to accurately assess the reliability of second and third hand accusations is greater exaggerated in order to enhance the credibility of the Russian Dossier.
Tom Nash – since Steele got 11 payments from the DoJ, maybe we could have him charged with defrauding the US government?
yeah an expert like lawyers. he is an expert at doing what he is assigned to do
Hang down your head, Don Jr.,
Hang down your head and cry.
Hang down your head, Don Jr.
Rich boy you’re bound to die.
Professor Turley is very careful about how he lodges his views. For example, he is not willing to go out on a limb and predict that Manafort will be acquited. That verdict will happen before the month’s end and he does not want to look bad on predicting that one.
As for Trump, he realizes that matter has a longer tail, so he can continue to invent defenses and technicalities to somehow absolve the POTUS because he knows few will recall in 6 months or a year. Meanwhile, he can always claim newly discovered evidenced changed his defensive positon.
I hope you will have an opportunity to weigh in on the latest drama courtesy of the President’s Chief Protector in the House, Devin Nunes as I hope you have had a chance to listen to what Devin Nunes has had to say…..Cheers.
Yes, Nunes in effect admits that Trump receiving emails from Russians (or Portuguese) would be “criminal.”
Deal with it Professor over your Portuguese sausage.
Now who got those emails for him?
Mike P., .
If JT does not coved this issue, not to worry.
Adam Schiff will appear before camera after camera to put forward the Committee’s minority position.
I don’t remember seeing Nunes in a televised interview, although I’m sure he’s probably done them.
Schiff has never met a camera he didn’t like.
As a marathoner, Schiff is very fit. And he has a sixth sense to locate (then run to) any camera within a 26 mile radius.😉
“cover”
Completely irrelevant and off point. Sad!
Oh, well, here’s Nunes on tape, Enjoy the conspiracy. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trms-exclusive-devin-nunes-speaks-candidly-fundraiser
hollywood – Nunes is running for re-election. He is allowed to speak at fund-raisers. This is why I hold Alex Jones and Rachel Maddow in the same regard.
Nunes has a lock on his conservative district. He was speaking at a fund raiser for McMorris Rogers and he didn’t know he was being recorded while making admissions.
Just to add something we already have money as free speech and that effort took from the late 1700’s and a twisted tortuous path to develop including the development of corporate personhood but only the claim but not the development vice versa. It jumped from the First Amendment and others and from Article Five to use the sub articles on business law.
As the Prof stated now people want to develop a companion ‘instant law’ to fit their own narrow immediate interests without thinking it through because as elections have consequences and many are unintended.
One upcoming example might easily go like this. Schumer an company try once again to strong arm spending a huge amount of heretofore unbudgeted money. Money not earned but borrowed and give nothing in return. Soi let us call that a second one and a half trillion.
The President instead declares a government slow down (I do not use thas farce name of shut down for obvious reasons.) But this time instead of laying off whowever is most handy such as park attendants the President choose to lay off political appointees from previous administrations.
Having gained enough to keep the budget balanced without another debt ceiling increases he reverses or stops going back in (seniority rule) and protects those from previous administrations (Bush years) who are close to retirement leaving few who are now deemed ineffectual or transferred to meaningless jobs and locations.
He also allows SOME to remain who are truly deemed critical.
Having seen the effect on personnel costs he makes those layoffs permanent and cancels out the one and a half trillion. AND enough to fund the wall, the military spending and VA increases, double the Border Patrol and the A10 squadrons and another tax cut then allows the annual medicaid block grant increase to pass.
All for a 30% plus or minus decrease in the size of government when the counting is done. Skps CBO and uses OMB figures.
and offers nothing in return until he sees the Immigration program provisions passed unhindered While hinting about 8,000 annual immigration to allow for DACA.
The poitical appointees from the previous administration are not brought back but laid oiif permanently with one caveat. He pulls their security clearances stating ‘IO have lost my trust in you.’ That is all it would take.
Then sets about dismantling or re aligning the fourth branch so that each agency which now enjoys three branch powers suddenly does not. Easy to do as obviously FDR’s scientific administration experiment has failed. The other two branches must take on mjanagement responsbilities and budgeting for any they retain. within their own branch of government. People will alway make a trade to enlarge their own castle and this time it would serve the Constitution three branch checks and balances rule nicely.
Now the above is fiction Or is it. It’s all doable by Executive Order and would be wildly and widely popular. It’s only fictional to the degree that any developed but not yet implemented plan is fiction. Best of all not one critical program would be left unattended or unfulfilled. for 70% would still be working. Just like real life except called a slowdown instead of the fictional shut down.
But to certain segments it would be a shocking unintended consequence.
And the alterntive is keep the government slowdown going until a suitable budget is produced. That too would be widely and wildly popular. I’t’s how we were able to build a 40% voting block in 2016.
Amazing how many joined that block
of voters by either registering and voting or by ‘walking away. Add in to that group a great manh Republicans and that’s how 55% was obtained.
Except we called it a legal counter revolution.
and gave it a name of Ballots Not Bullets
and a set of goals
Stop Enabling
Take Control
Make Change
and cited our Oaths of Office to provide the legality.
All compliments of one of our combat arms units who deal in such things.
It’s still operating but the midterms are different. Still we managed to plant the idea of being a candidate for our goals but pretending to be a good little party member. You do recall a certain former Marine who won doing exactly that?
Sometmes you find some parts of a fictional plan really have become reality.
But bring it back on track to the Professor’s comments on the dangers of creating new laws but welcome to the land of unintended consequences.
Best of all no need to take long walks in the woods ‘searching for answers without any clues.’
And still Years later everyone that hates trump cannot come up with pictures of a couple Hookers in Russian hats! LOL!
Moose to Squirrel: Squirrel, Wait, Over There Storrrrmy Daniels is about to be recycled again on this figure eight track they have us on. Just like this latest JT article & the Trump tower meeting.
In the mean time below:
“To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction”
– Isaac Newton
____________
So now America knows that Rosenstein, Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Steele, Simpson, Hillary, Huma, Lynch, Brennan, Clapper, Joseph Mifsud, Kerry, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Power, Farkas, Rice, Jarrett, Obama et al. conspired to falsely exonerate Hillary Clinton to protect Barack Obama, intimidate and turn Attorney General Jeff Sessions and open a fraudulent “malicious prosecution” against a duly elected, sitting President.
The Manafort “show trial” is the product of that insidious endeavor. Bravo!
When does America obtain, from the “dedicated” law enforcement authorities that “serve” this nation, the imperative and legitimate second special counsel to investigate the actual crime, the most prodigious scandal in American political history, the Obama Coup D’etat in America?
wow….. i dont know who half of those people are, so I doubt “Everyone” knows what your talking about, but im assuming its a conspiracy theory nonsense…..
I think you may be wrong in your assumption
If you don’t know who half those people are, you have not been following the debate, and should not be commenting on it.
Thanks Wally, I just logged back in to tell him much of the same thing. It’s like someone wants some of this to memorize this crap about supposed crimes Team Trump never committed to distract from the Real Crimes we know Hillary/Obama/Dems/Neocon RINO Repubs are known to have committed.
No, Team Trump committed the crimes. Go to bed.
hollywood – name the crime and the time and place. Mueller can’t.
18 USC 371. He already named it.
conspiracy to defraud the US
the only criminal law on the books even more vague than money laundering
you have found it hollywood good for you
https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2822&context=lalrev
strict construction of criminal statutes:
applies to every law except money laundering and conspiracy crimes alleged by the US
hollywood – Mueller didn’t name it because Trump’s lawyers will not let him met with Mueller unless he has a crime.
Oh dear. Are you saying Mueller has to issue a subpoena?
he cant subpoena DJT and he knows it.
“he cant subpoena DJT and he knows it.”
Mueller can subpoena or do anything he wants but that doesn’t mean what he does will hold water. Mueller has pushed the law to the limits stretching it to the point of breaking (maybe there are breaks already). A subpoena means a court battle which I believe the President wins.
hollywood – the question is will the grand jury issue one for the President of the USA?
I think you’ve confused Mueller with Late4Yoga.