Manafort decision

[*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.