Manafort decision

[*michaelsean*]

(08-21-2018, 07:41 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: That's how investigations go. If the FBI is investigating someone (which requires a substantial amount of evidence for them to start an investigation in the first place) for federal racketeering and they uncover evidence that the dude killed someone, then they will investigate the murder as well while they continue the racketeering investigation.

Hell RICO will lock you up longer than a boring old murder.

[Bengalzona]

(08-21-2018, 06:57 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Not sure about the victory for Mueller comment. Didn’t know his job was to “win”.

Some folks think that if Manafort were found not guilty, that that would make the whole Russian influence investigation invalid.

Their counterparts are the ones that think this verdict proves Russian influence.

You and I call those folks extremists.

[fredtoast]

(08-21-2018, 07:26 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: And still, not a shred of anything linking toward "Russian collusion"..

The only reason to believe there was no collusion is if you believe what Donald Trump says.

This plea was another example Of trump pretty much lying about everything.

So why do you still believe there was no collusion.

[fredtoast]

(08-21-2018, 07:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose it's a case of going where the evidence leads; however, I think he is referring to the impetus of the probe in relationship to the charges.

There was evidence (since confirmed) that the Russians wanted to meet with the Trump campaign and provide them information to influence the election.

It would have been a disgrace if they had not investigated.

[*bfine32*]

(08-22-2018, 02:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The only reason to believe there was no collusion is if you believe what Donald Trump says.

This plea was another example Of trump pretty much lying about everything.

So why do you still believe there was no collusion.

Isn't that the same thing folks have used for another high profile investigation?

It's funny how we will change our required burden of proof dependent on our bias.

[SunsetBengal]

(08-22-2018, 02:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The only reason to believe there was no collusion is if you believe what Donald Trump says.

No, the reason to believe that there was no collusion, is because there has been no evidence produced.  All we have are a couple of guys, guilty of things unrelated to anything close to colluding with Russians.  

[GMDino]

(08-22-2018, 02:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There was evidence (since confirmed) that the Russians wanted to meet with the Trump campaign and provide them information to influence the election.

It would have been a disgrace if they had not investigated.

Which is why Trump Jr lied, then changed his lie and then finally told the truth while his daddy lied.

[BmorePat87]

Days after saying Democrats are for crime, Trump is heaping praise on a criminal and suggesting his crimes aren't worth prosecuting because they're so old.

[GMDino]

(08-22-2018, 04:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Days after saying Democrats are for crime, Trump is heaping praise on a criminal and suggesting his crimes aren't worth prosecuting because they're so old.

He means REAL crime like trying to get asylum from a country filled with brown people.

Not UNREAL crime like tax evasion.

[fredtoast]

(08-22-2018, 04:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: No, the reason to believe that there was no collusion, is because there has been no evidence produced.  All we have are a couple of guys, guilty of things unrelated to anything close to colluding with Russians.  

There is evidence.  

After having his team lie their asses off for over a year Trump finally admitted that the meeting with the Russians at Trump Tower was to get information to influence the election.

How can you still claim there is no evidence?

[SunsetBengal]

(08-22-2018, 06:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is evidence.  

After having his team lie their asses off for over a year Trump finally admitted that the meeting with the Russians at Trump Tower was to get information to influence the election.

How can you still claim there is no evidence?

Oh, that meeting?  Lol, everyone has known about that meeting for a long time.  It was supposed to be a foreign agent with dirt on H. Clinton, but it turned out to be nothing.  They walked out. 

And, how is that any different that HRC using a foreign operative like Christopher Steele to gather dirt on her competitor?

If you honestly think that one of those events was wrong, and the other was completely acceptable, YOU need to take off those biased lenses that you see the world through.  Sure, there's dirt on DJT, just like most any other politician or businessman, just not the "Russian collusion" kind that people like yourself keep hoping for.

[fredtoast]

(08-22-2018, 06:51 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Oh, that meeting?  Lol, everyone has known about that meeting for a long time.  It was supposed to be a foreign agent with dirt on H. Clinton, but it turned out to be nothing.  They walked out. 

So you are still buying the CURRENT version of reality the Trump team is feeding you.  Aren't you alittle concerned that this newest version is completely different from the first version they told you to believe.

No problem with that at all?

(08-22-2018, 06:51 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: And, how is that any different that HRC using a foreign operative like Christopher Steele to gather dirt on her competitor?

If you honestly think that one of those events was wrong, and the other was completely acceptable, YOU need to take off those biased lenses that you see the world through.  Sure, there's dirt on DJT, just like most any other politician or businessman, just not the "Russian collusion" kind that people like yourself keep hoping for.

The information from Christopher Steele was collected through a legitimate US company Fusion GPS under the jurisdiction and regulation of US laws.  That is TOTALLY different than working directly with a foreign source with no official records or any regulation by any laws.

That's like saying that if it is okay to record a candidates public statements then it is okay to bug her phones and offices.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-22-2018, 07:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you are still buying the CURRENT version of reality the Trump team is feeding you.  Aren't you alittle concerned that this newest version is completely different from the first version they told you to believe.

No problem with that at all?


The information from Christopher Steele was collected through a legitimate US company Fusion GPS under the jurisdiction and regulation of US laws.  That is TOTALLY different than working directly with a foreign source with no official records or any regulation by any laws.

That's like saying that if it is okay to record a candidates public statements then it is okay to bug her phones and offices.

But the law you cited makes no distinction about any of that. It says nothing about whose jurisdiction you are operating under or who you got it from. It just says you can’t receive anything from a foreign national. Perhaps there are court cases that clarify it?

[fredtoast]

(08-22-2018, 07:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: But the law you cited makes no distinction about any of that.

Yes it does.

A "foreign national" is defined in 22 US code 611.  

The term “foreign principal” includes—

(1) a government of a foreign country and a foreign political party;

(2) a person outside of the United States, unless it is established that such person is an individual and a citizen of and domiciled within the United States, or that such person is not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States




Fusion GPS is a United States corporation.  Totally different from making secret deals with representatives of foreign governments.

[Bengalzona]

BTW - Manafort has a second trial that starts in a few weeks on separate charges for allegations of lying to the FBI, money laundering and foreign lobbying. And now the prosecution has a bunch of additional evidence brought up in this trial.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/19/paul-manafort-second-trial-mueller/1034142002/

[*michaelsean*]

(08-22-2018, 07:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes it does.

A "foreign national" is defined in 22 US code 611.  

The term “foreign principal” includes—

(1) a government of a foreign country and a foreign political party;

(2) a person outside of the United States, unless it is established that such person is an individual and a citizen of and domiciled within the United States, or that such person is not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States




Fusion GPS is a United States corporation.  Totally different from making secret deals with representatives of foreign governments.

Are foreign national and foreign principle the same thing? Because that’s not the definition of foreign national I read in relation to that law. Also none of that applies to Christopher Steele. That’s where the information originated. I have seen nothing that states it can come from a foreign national as long as it’s laundered through a regulated company. That would’ve a pretty easy run around.

[*michaelsean*]

Quote: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
© 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.
(Pub. L. 92–225, title III, §319, formerly §324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, §112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493 ; renumbered §319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, §105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354 ; amended Pub. L. 107–155, title III, §§303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96 , 109.)

So here I don’t see it mattering about whether it goes through an American corporation or its a secret meeting.

[Belsnickel]

(08-21-2018, 07:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose it's a case of going where the evidence leads; however, I think he is referring to the impetus of the probe in relationship to the charges.

I personally have no issues with discovering something else when looking for another thing; but I thought may liberals weren't really a fan of this. Of course I could be off track. 

I knew what you were referencing with this post, but my memories of the Clinton years aren't great because I was in grade school and not paying attention to any of it. Today, I got a little more insight into what's going on with the special counsel situation. I know some people will sneer at this as it's from the NY Times, but this is The Daily podcast and they did a discussion today about how the independent counsel was used, how it shifted to the special counsel rules, and how the special counsel is intended to be different.

It was interesting to hear about how after Nixon, there was a recognition that an investigator not beholden to the POTUS was necessary. So the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 was passed and ended up creating the Office of Independent Counsel (what it was eventually renamed to 9 years later). What followed was essentially a fourth branch of government that had zero oversight. Because of this, in 1999, OIC became OSC with new rules. This episode discusses this transition and the rules Mueller is working under. As the first SC to investigate a sitting POTUS under these new rules, this is really the first test of these rules that has more oversight from the DoJ, but also has certain mechanisms in place in case there is an effort by the Executive to hinder the investigation and its outcomes.

It was definitely an interesting listen and I learned a lot about how this all works, especially as someone who hasn't been paying attention to politics long enough to have any idea what the OIC was really like.

[fredtoast]

(08-22-2018, 08:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote:  I have seen nothing that states it can come from a foreign national as long as it’s laundered through a regulated company. That would’ve a pretty easy run around.

Having the information being processed through an agency that is subject to laws and regulations is the OPPOSITE of a "run around".  Instead it makes sure that laws are followed.

There is no problem with using information that comes from a location outside the United States.  In fact some of that type of information can be critical.  These laws are put in place to make sure that the information is not being supplied by a foreign government as a bribe or to buy influence.

Campaign finance laws were created for a reason.  The Gas and Oil Lobby can make legitimate contributions to a candidates campaign or file to form a PAC.  But they can't just slip a candidate a check for a few million dollars on the sly.  And there are very good reasons for that.

[fredtoast]

(08-22-2018, 08:25 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So here I don’t see it mattering about whether it goes through an American corporation or its a secret meeting.

I don't know how to respond.

How can you say it does not matter when the law clearly says it matters?  If the information is provided by a US corporation regulated under the laws of the United States then that is not getting information from a foreign national that is not under the jurisdiction or regulation of US laws.

What specific language makes you think it does not matter?