Manafort decision

[*michaelsean*]

(08-23-2018, 01:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

I'm not trying to be overly argumentative here, but the law says nothing like that and it doesn't limit it to a foreign government.  And indirect is no different than direct.

Edit: We don't need to go around and around on this. I just don't see where it say it's OK to receive help from a foreign national as long as it goes through a regulated US corporation first.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-23-2018, 01:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

So, there's no issue with Russia giving money to the NRA?

[fredtoast]

(08-23-2018, 02:08 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So, there's no issue with Russia giving money to the NRA?

Not sure what this has to do with the discussion.

NRA is not a candidate running for office.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-23-2018, 02:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not sure what this has to do with the discussion.

NRA is not a candidate running for office.

Neither was Fusion GPS.

[fredtoast]

(08-23-2018, 02:22 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Neither was Fusion GPS.

And Fusion GPS was not a candidate running for office.

Russia can give money to the NRA.  That does not violate any campaign finance laws.  If the NRA was a sham corporation set up and controlled by Russians then I might have a problem, but that is not the case at all.  And all donations from the NRA to a campaign are controlled by the campaign finance laws.

Fusion GPS can be hired by a campaign to research and gather information.  That does not violate campaign finance laws.

The Trump campaign can not obtain secret information from a foreign agent outside of the laws and regulations of the United sates because that violate campaign finance laws.


I don't know what part of this you are having problems with?  You are trying to compare apples to oranges.  Contributions to a campaign are controlled by certain laws.  They have nothing to do with the Russia giving money to the NRA.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-23-2018, 03:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And Fusion GPS was not a candidate running for office.

Russia can give money to the NRA.  That does not violate any campaign finance laws.  If the NRA was a sham corporation set up and controlled by Russians then I might have a problem, but that is not the case at all.  And all donations from the NRA to a campaign are controlled by the campaign finance laws.

Fusion GPS can be hired by a campaign to research and gather information.  That does not violate campaign finance laws.

The Trump campaign can not obtain secret information from a foreign agent outside of the laws and regulations of the United sates because that violate campaign finance laws.

According to the info michaelsean posted, a candidate can not gain information INDIRECTLY as well as directly. I would think getting an info through a 3rd party would still count as indirect. So Hillary or Trump going to a company like Fusion GPS who then gets their info from a foreign national would still be breaking the law (as written in michealsean's post).

As to the NRA thing, I remember a lot of people upset when there were stories about Russia donating funds to them.

[fredtoast]

(08-23-2018, 03:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: According to the info michaelsean posted, a candidate can not gain information INDIRECTLY as well as directly. I would think getting an info through a 3rd party would still count as indirect. So Hillary or Trump going to a company like Fusion GPS who then gets their info from a foreign national would still be breaking the law (as written in michealsean's post).

Fusion GPS never made a contribution to any campaign.  They were hired and paid to do research.  They were not trading information in order to get return favors from the candidate.  They were trading the information for money from the campaign.

Campaign finance laws are set up to stop people from buying favors through campaign contributions.  They have noting to do with people who are hired to work for a campaign.  Those people are not working for favors.  They are working for money.

[GMDino]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-manaford-jury-deliberations_us_5b7e53efe4b0348585fd611e

Quote:Manafort Juror Says ‘One Holdout’ Kept Jury From Convicting On All Counts
Eleven members of the jury were in agreement that Manafort was guilty on all 18 felony charges but that they could not get the one holdout to change her mind.


X
Aug 22 (Reuters) - The jury in the trial of Paul Manafort would have convicted the former Trump campaign chairman on all 18 criminal charges if not for one juror who had questions about the reasonable doubt standard of guilt, a juror told Fox News on Wednesday.

“There was one holdout,” the juror in the trial, Paula Duncan, said in an interview.

“We all tried to convince her to look at the paper trail. We laid it out in front of her again and again and she still said that she had a reasonable doubt.”
[/url]

Quote:
Fox News

@FoxNews





"There was one holdout."

In an exclusive interview on @foxnewsnight, Paul Manafort juror Paula Duncan said Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team was one holdout juror away from convicting Paul Manafort on all 18 counts of bank and tax fraud. https://fxn.ws/2Mrmrzb 
11:11 PM - Aug 22, 2018

• 
  574
• 
  [url=https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1032465340792557569]661 people are talking about this
  

Twitter Ads info and privacy



The jury on Tuesday found Manafort guilty on two counts of bank fraud, five counts of tax fraud and one charge of failing to disclose foreign bank accounts, giving Special Counsel Robert Mueller a victory in the first trial arising from his investigation of Russia’s role in the 2016 U.S. election.

But the jury of six men and six women could not reach a consensus on 10 other counts. Judge T.S. Ellis, who oversaw the three-week trial in a U.S. federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, declared a mistrial on those 10 counts.

In the first public comments by a juror in the case, Duncan said that 11 members of the jury were in agreement that Manafort was guilty on all 18 felony charges but that they could not get the one holdout to change her mind after nearly four days of deliberations.

“We didn’t want it to be hung so we tried for an extended period of time to convince her. But in the end she held out and that’s why we have 10 counts that did not get a verdict,” she said.

Duncan said she was speaking out to inform the public and that she was not concerned about her safety. Ellis said that he had received threats and he has not released juror names, citing worries about their safety.

“I thought that the public, America, needed to know how close this was and the evidence was overwhelming,” she said.

Duncan said she was a Trump supporter and wanted to believe that Manafort was innocent. She noted that even his critics had described him as a brilliant political consultant and that Trump had trusted him with overseeing his campaign.

“I did not want Paul Manafort to be guilty. But he was and no one is above the law.”

Duncan said some of the jurors had a problem accepting the testimony of Rick Gates, Manafort’s former right-hand man, because he was testifying as part of a plea deal and “would have done anything that he could to preserve himself.”

She said the jury decided to not consider Gates’ testimony and focus instead on the documentary evidence.

Duncan had tough words for attorneys on both sides.

She said the prosecution looked bored at times and that she saw two of them napping. Manafort’s lawyers, on the other hand, gave short cross-examinations, rarely objected and gave off an “easy going” vibe, she said.

“I think I expected a little more,” Duncan said.

Duncan said the deliberations were heated at times, leading some jurors to tears at one point, but that politics did not influence their decision-making.

“I think we all went in there like we were supposed to and assumed that Mr Manafort was innocent. We did due diligence, we applied the evidence, our notes, the witnesses and we came out with guilty verdicts on the eight counts,” she said.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-23-2018, 03:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Fusion GPS never made a contribution to any campaign.  They were hired and paid to do research.  They were not trading information in order to get return favors from the candidate.  They were trading the information for money from the campaign.

Campaign finance laws are set up to stop people from buying favors through campaign contributions.  They have noting to do with people who are hired to work for a campaign.  Those people are not working for favors.  They are working for money.

So, if Trump has a secret meeting with Russian officials and they give him some information harmful to Hillary, as long as he pays them in cash, it's ok? 

[fredtoast]

(08-23-2018, 02:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote:  I just don't see where it say it's OK to receive help from a foreign national as long as it goes through a regulated US corporation first.

It is okay because the regulated corporation is subject to laws and regulations.

How can you not get this?

Let me ask you this.  Could Russia give a bribe to Donald Trump through a US corporation and keep it a secret?  No.  There would be a paper trail of any transaction like that. Understand now?

Same reason criminals don't write checks to buy drugs.

[fredtoast]

(08-23-2018, 03:59 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So, if Trump has a secret meeting with Russian officials and they give him some information harmful to Hillary, as long as he pays them in cash, it's ok? 

Is the Russian official a US corporation subject to the jurisdiction and regulation of US laws?

Do you ever read the laws we are discussing?  Or do you just blindly believe Fox News when they tell you "Fusion GPS is the same as a Russian spy"?

[fredtoast]

(08-23-2018, 02:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm not trying to be overly argumentative here, but the law says nothing like that and it doesn't limit it to a foreign government. 

Wrong.  That is exactly what the law says.  I can quote it directly to you.

(08-23-2018, 02:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote:  And indirect is no different than direct. 

And "truth is not truth", right?

If you don't agree with a law just pretend it does not say what it says.  The law clearly says that a US corporation is not a "foreign national".  I printed it in my post for you to see.  How can you disagree with that?

[*michaelsean*]

(08-23-2018, 06:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wrong.  That is exactly what the law says.  I can quote it directly to you.



And "truth is not truth", right?

If you don't agree with a law just pretend it does not say what it says.  The law clearly says that a US corporation is not a "foreign national".  I printed it in my post for you to see.  How can you disagree with that?

And indirect isn’t indirect. Fusion got their info from a foreign national and he got his from foreign nationals, most likely Russian officials.

You printed half of it in your post for me to see. Had I not seen the law when you posted it in the other thread I probably would have taken you at your word. It seems you deliberately tried to mislead in your post. We’ve disagreed a million times but I don’t recall you doing this before. There is an “or”.

[fredtoast]

(08-23-2018, 07:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: And indirect isn’t indirect. Fusion got their info from a foreign national and he got his from foreign nationals, most likely Russian officials.  

You printed half of it in your post for me to see.  Had I not seen the law when you posted it in the other thread I probably would have taken you at your word.  It seems you deliberately tried to mislead in your post.  We’ve disagreed a million times but I don’t recall you doing this before. There is an “or”.

So please tell me what foreign national involved in the Fusion GPS report did any of this.

(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




Hint:  No one.


The mental gymastics you all are going through to defend Trump is alarming.  A campaign dealing directly with a foreign spy with no connection to the US or regulation under US law is completely differnt from hiring a US agency to do legitimate research.

Trump sure was right about his followers not minding if he shot someon in the street.  They would find some way to prove it didn't matter or else "BUT HILLARY....."

[*PhilHos*]

(08-24-2018, 10:53 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So please tell me what foreign national involved in the Fusion GPS report did any of this.

(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




Hint:  No one.

So what you're saying, then, is that when Trump went to meet with the Russians to get info on Hillary, he was not breaking this particular law?

[ballsofsteel]

Who will become the new vice president once the con man goes to prison and Pence takes over?

[Belsnickel]

Man, there really has been some terrible discussion on this topic.

The issue of Russian collusion boils down to the fact that Russian state actors engaged in illegal activities to obtain information harmful to the Clinton campaign. If members of the Trump campaign were involved in any way with this, it could be considered that they were conspirators in those illegal actions. The Russian collusion question is less about campaign finance violations than it is the illegal activities by the Russian government.

Hiring a firm to do opposition research is a legal action, even if it involves gaining information from foreign sources. It's a common practice that has taken place by every major political campaign and it isn't comparable to the meeting at Trump Tower. If information during opposition research is obtained illegally, and a campaign finds out, it is the duty of the campaign to turn over the information to the authorities. As the information being discussed that Russia was using was obtained through hacking, and it was known to be the case, then that falls into that category.

Campaign regulations and laws are a difficult water to wade through. I am by no means an expert on them, this is just what I have picked up from the numerous articles I have read and conversations I have listened to discussing these topics ad nauseum for the past two years.

[ballsofsteel]

(08-24-2018, 05:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Man, there really has been some terrible discussion on this topic.

The issue of Russian collusion boils down to the fact that Russian state actors engaged in illegal activities to obtain information harmful to the Clinton campaign. If members of the Trump campaign were involved in any way with this, it could be considered that they were conspirators in those illegal actions. The Russian collusion question is less about campaign finance violations than it is the illegal activities by the Russian government.

Hiring a firm to do opposition research is a legal action, even if it involves gaining information from foreign sources. It's a common practice that has taken place by every major political campaign and it isn't comparable to the meeting at Trump Tower. If information during opposition research is obtained illegally, and a campaign finds out, it is the duty of the campaign to turn over the information to the authorities. As the information being discussed that Russia was using was obtained through hacking, and it was known to be the case, then that falls into that category.

Campaign regulations and laws are a difficult water to wade through. I am by no means an expert on them, this is just what I have picked up from the numerous articles I have read and conversations I have listened to discussing these topics ad nauseum for the past two years.


Don't feel bad. Rudy the vampire Giuliani isn't one either.

[fredtoast]

(08-24-2018, 05:19 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So what you're saying, then, is that when Trump went to meet with the Russians to get info on Hillary, he was not breaking this particular law?

No.  The plain language of the law said what he did was illegal.

It shall be unlawful for-

(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.





WTF are you even talking about?

[*michaelsean*]

(08-24-2018, 05:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Man, there really has been some terrible discussion on this topic.

The issue of Russian collusion boils down to the fact that Russian state actors engaged in illegal activities to obtain information harmful to the Clinton campaign. If members of the Trump campaign were involved in any way with this, it could be considered that they were conspirators in those illegal actions. The Russian collusion question is less about campaign finance violations than it is the illegal activities by the Russian government.

Hiring a firm to do opposition research is a legal action, even if it involves gaining information from foreign sources. It's a common practice that has taken place by every major political campaign and it isn't comparable to the meeting at Trump Tower. If information during opposition research is obtained illegally, and a campaign finds out, it is the duty of the campaign to turn over the information to the authorities. As the information being discussed that Russia was using was obtained through hacking, and it was known to be the case, then that falls into that category.

Campaign regulations and laws are a difficult water to wade through. I am by no means an expert on them, this is just what I have picked up from the numerous articles I have read and conversations I have listened to discussing these topics ad nauseum for the past two years.

Nobody that I know of is defending Trump. Just wondering why it’s different, and there is nothing I can see that says the information needs to be obtained illegally. It says you can’t receive something of value. We determined info is included. It says it can’t come from a foreigner. Christopher Steele is a foreigner as are the Russians he obtained it from. It says directly or indirectly. This was discussed on another thread where I was trying to find out the difference, but some people see every discussion as adversarial. I’d be happy to discuss it with you.

What would they mean by indirectly if not exactly this? It seems to say you can’t use an intermediary to do that which you are forbidden.

The law does not limit this to a state as seen in the second definition of a foreign national.