The Fake News Lie that makes Trump look like a Boy Scout in compariso

[TheDeamon]

If there is somehow an uprising from "the left" you'd be a fool to believe it was the "SJW/AntiFa" crowd.
The only potential uprising I can see on the horizon is Trump supporters if some new method of kicking the President out of office was invented just for Trump.  And I don't know as I'd blame them entirely for it.

Not so much, as part of the whole "They don't get it" I expect the mid-terms are not going to meet with their hopes and expectations.

We've already seen how violent they've been after 2016 didn't go their way.

Care to take bets as to how violent they may get if 2018 doesn't go their way?

[Gaoics79]

Would it be legally okay for a foreign government to:

Provide a donor list (of Americans) for use by a campaign.
Send out emails to recruit volunteers and pass the results along.
Make a youtube video and hand it over in a private meeting.
Generate polling results.

These are all information, it seems to me, nothing tangible. Maybe they are all legal. But there's a shady morality there.

Of course, getting worked up about it is pretty silly considering how companies owned and by foreign nationals funnel money legally into campaigns.

You're asking if it's illegal for a foreign government to do these things?

Provide a donor list? I'm not sure what's being referred to, but you're suggesting that it's illegal to create and distribute a list?

Send e-mails? Make a Youtube video? Generate a poll?

I don't even need to look it up - I can't conceive of how this could ever be illegal in any free society.

I don't even consider any of it to be particularly "shady" frankly.

[Pete at Home]

If there is somehow an uprising from "the left" you'd be a fool to believe it was the "SJW/AntiFa" crowd.

If you'd qualified a national uprising, then you'd be right, but since you didn't,  uprisings at Evergreen and Berkeley and Missouri prove you wrong.  We're talking about a series of university based mini-uprisings that resemble the Cultural Revolution in the PRC, which when it ran its course resulted in two million deaths.

[D.W.]

If you'd qualified a national uprising, then you'd be right, but since you didn't,  uprisings at Evergreen and Berkeley and Missouri prove you wrong.

Sorry, I guess I just consume liberal media.  NPR didn't see fit to inform me of these and prove me wrong...

From where I'm sitting any talk of uprising is just hyperbole and silliness.  But thanks for the heads up.  I'll keep an eye out for when I need to take cover from the National Guard when they come to deal with the UofM students.

[Pete at Home]

Then I will try to remember that the New York Times isn't liberal enough for you and that if didn't happen on NPR, you don't care.


Youtube shows People being held against their will and subject to humiliating mob punishments.  If this is allowed to go on as the Cultural Revolution was, it will get murderous.

[D.W.]

To say I don't care, is not accurate.

To say that I've become skeptical enough to not take people's word for it that this is a "sky is falling" event, would be fair.

Do you honestly believe this is a culture that is likely to continue or to expand?  I'm with you that it's a terrible incident and we need to safeguard against all intimidation and threatening behavior when possible, no matter what the politics or goals are of the perpetrators.  But no, I find it hard to get worked up about this.

Maybe I don't watch enough YouTube?  That's certainly a fair... criticism?   I don't spend my outrage currency as freely as you do.

[Pete at Home]

Reread what you said and tell me if it looks more like a skeptical "I need sources to believe that" or a "if it ain't on NPR, it didn't happen."

NPR did a whitewash piece on it, one of those "nothing to see here, move along."

Here's VICE News (a liberal-center source like most of what I follow): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cMYfxOFBBM

Note the "protesters" discussing openly about putting their prisoners in rooms where they cannot escape.

[D.W.]

I'll try and check it out later.  I don't watch videos from work.
In general, I'm a dinosaur and consume my "news" either on my alarm clock radio, in the car, or in written form on the web. 

So... maybe not a dinosaur, but video averse?

Reread what you said and tell me if it looks more like a skeptical "I need sources to believe that" or a "if it ain't on NPR, it didn't happen

That's me.  If I ain't heard about it, it's either fake news or not worth knowing!

"a liberal-center source"  Out of curiosity, where's NPR on your scale?

[Wayward Son]

gathering intelligence on a crime from any source is legitimate so long as it doesn't violate fundamental human rights (e.g. info obtained by torture)

Accepting money otoh is corrupt if done knowingly. And taking from the PRC was particularly ugly since Clinton's release of gyroscope tech looks like a quid pro quo.

The fundamental question is why accepting money is corrupt?  What harm does it do?

I believe that, if you can explain that to me, I can explain why knowingly seeking private intelligence from a foreign government (especially one that is not an ally) for political purposes is also problematic.

I'm not saying that information is the same as money.  I'm saying that trying to get secret information from a foreign government has the same problems as trying to get money from a foreign government.

[TheDrake]

Would it be legally okay for a foreign government to:

Provide a donor list (of Americans) for use by a campaign.
Send out emails to recruit volunteers and pass the results along.
Make a youtube video and hand it over in a private meeting.
Generate polling results.

These are all information, it seems to me, nothing tangible. Maybe they are all legal. But there's a shady morality there.

Of course, getting worked up about it is pretty silly considering how companies owned and by foreign nationals funnel money legally into campaigns.

You're asking if it's illegal for a foreign government to do these things?

Provide a donor list? I'm not sure what's being referred to, but you're suggesting that it's illegal to create and distribute a list?

Send e-mails? Make a Youtube video? Generate a poll?

I don't even need to look it up - I can't conceive of how this could ever be illegal in any free society.

I don't even consider any of it to be particularly "shady" frankly.

The restrictions are on foreign nationals, not governments. So a bunch of random North Koreans start pitching in to support a Senate candidate in Kentucky, and that wouldn't seem at all shady to you?

What if, instead, they manufactured 100,000 bumperstickers and yard signs?

As far as "why care"? Because we've used exactly these tactics to help elect pro-American candidates and sponsored coups in other countries.

[Pete at Home]

gathering intelligence on a crime from any source is legitimate so long as it doesn't violate fundamental human rights (e.g. info obtained by torture)

Accepting money otoh is corrupt if done knowingly. And taking from the PRC was particularly ugly since Clinton's release of gyroscope tech looks like a quid pro quo.

The fundamental question is why accepting money is corrupt?  What harm does it do?

I believe that, if you can explain that to me, I can explain why knowingly seeking private intelligence from a foreign government (especially one that is not an ally) for political purposes is also problematic.

I'm not saying that information is the same as money.  I'm saying that trying to get secret information from a foreign government has the same problems as trying to get money from a foreign government.

What is the information you are claiming was "secret"?

Should it have been secret?

Are you trying to pitch this like insider trading information?

If you offer money to get out of a legal snafu, that's a bribe.  If you offer a cop information in exchange for leniency, I have never heard anyone call that a bribe or undue influence.

Political candidates, like police, need accurate information to do their job.

[Pete at Home]

"a liberal-center source"  Out of curiosity, where's NPR on your scale

Used to be liberal-center, but after its apologetics on Evergreen, I don't know anymore.

[Pete at Home]

If you disagree on the VICE characterization, let me know.

Note that vice is generally more lowbrow than pubs despite similar political leanings

[TheDeamon]

What if, instead, they manufactured 100,000 bumperstickers and yard signs?

Or 100,000 "Make America Great Again" ball caps. 

In reality, I think you'd find a lot of campaign paraphernalia from the last several cycles used materials that made either in part, or in whole, on foreign soil. Of course, they were paid for, but there were foreign origins all the same.

[D.W.]

OK, well I watched the clip Pete.
My first reaction is this.  How afraid of not fitting in do you have to be to not call out your peers on their BS?  How afraid of avoiding controversy do you have to be as a staff member must you be to not call people out on this BS?

The only part I hadn't heard about is the apparent detention (though he seems to deny that characterization) of their President.  This is a case of people obsessed with their own outrage and victim hood that they are willing to create their own oppressors in order to pat themselves on the back for standing up against it. 

Echo-chamber combined with "like" whoring behavior meets young adulthood.  Maybe they'll figure out how to channel their energy in more productive ways when they are out in the real world.

[Pete at Home]

OK, well I watched the clip Pete.
My first reaction is this.  How afraid of not fitting in do you have to be to not call out your peers on their BS?  How afraid of avoiding controversy do you have to be as a staff member must you be to not call people out on this BS?

The only part I hadn't heard about is the apparent detention (though he seems to deny that characterization) of their President.  This is a case of people obsessed with their own outrage and victim hood that they are willing to create their own oppressors in order to pat themselves on the back for standing up against it. 

Echo-chamber combined with "like" whoring behavior meets young adulthood.  Maybe they'll figure out how to channel their energy in more productive ways when they are out in the real world.

He's not the only one that was so detained, but he's the only one whose show-trial was recorded.

Do you agree with me that what occurred at Evergreen is a variation of the Salem Witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, the cultural revolution, where otherwise decent people get swept up in mass hysteria?

The recipe seems to be:
(1) Religion or ideology ascends and becomes more powerful. (Puritanism in Salem escaping England, Catholicism in Spain kicking out the moors, Maoism in China beating Chang Kai Shek, and SJW-ideology at the university.
(2) Having overcome previous enemies and obstacles, the new power group seeks new opponents.

If you follow the youtube links from that one, you start to see the professors that were behind those students.

[Pete at Home]

According to NPR, Russia's allowed to lobby the American government:

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/14/537247838/what-really-irritates-vladimir-putin-the-magnitsky-act

The Magnitsky Act reemerged as a front-burner topic this week in connection with the investigations surrounding President Trump's campaign and possible links to Russian meddling in last year's presidential race.

Russia has lobbied hard for repeal of the act. That's what Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya said she was doing when she met with Donald Trump Jr. in June 2016 at Trump Tower in New York

Akhmetshin is, he added, "someone who can ingratiate himself with members of Congress and their staffs, power figures here, and make things happen."

Levine said they've been in touch periodically over the years, including in brief email exchanges in recent days as Akhmetshin's name began to surface in media reports.

Akhmetshin, who has become a U.S. citizen, has aggressively lobbied against the Magnitsky Act. Just a few days after his meeting with Trump Jr. in New York last year, Akhmetshin was in Washington to promote a movie called The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes.

The film was shown at the Newseum in Washington on June 13 of last year. It offers the Russian government's version of events and claims that Magnitsky was not mistreated by Russian authorities.

Trump Jr. has also said that — to his disappointment — last year's meeting with the Russians focused on the Magnitsky Act. Trump was told in advance the meeting would produce critical material on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. When the topic turned out to be the U.S. law, he considered it a waste of time.

So we have a known Russian agent, someone who lobbies to be more lenient with Russian oligarchs that commit crimes against humanity, who the Obama administration actually allowed to become a US citizen to facilitate his lobbying work on behalf of Putin.

In this light, do you understand my incredulity that some of us want to go after Trump just for receiving information from these guys?

[TheDrake]

Well, he didn't receive any information, so the whole thing is silly theater on that point. More interesting is the idea of lying about it (I never did meet with any Russians. Except that one time that you have proof of.)

Clinton was impeached, not because his sex acts were illegal, but because he lied under oath. Things like this don't help:

Jared Kushner's lawyers say there's an innocent explanation for why his first security clearance application omitted his meetings with several Russians, including Sergey Kislyak and Natalia Veselnitskaya: A member of Kushner’s staff hit send on his form too early. But the thing is, there isn’t one “send button” for this kind of security clearance form. There are 28.

[D.W.]

Do you agree with me that what occurred at Evergreen is a variation of the Salem Witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, the cultural revolution, where otherwise decent people get swept up in mass hysteria?

If by variation you mean like how me and my work team playing softball is a variation of MLB... Sure.

[Pete at Home]

Do you agree with me that what occurred at Evergreen is a variation of the Salem Witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, the cultural revolution, where otherwise decent people get swept up in mass hysteria?

If by variation you mean like how me and my work team playing softball is a variation of MLB... Sure.

 that's a reasonable place to start.  But one of those events stands out different, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, in that there are people alive who have given video testimony as to how it all started and snowballed.  Check that out if you're curious.  We can't say for sure how the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem Witch trials started, but the record of the cultural revolution is quite fresh and detailed.

[Wayward Son]

gathering intelligence on a crime from any source is legitimate so long as it doesn't violate fundamental human rights (e.g. info obtained by torture)

Accepting money otoh is corrupt if done knowingly. And taking from the PRC was particularly ugly since Clinton's release of gyroscope tech looks like a quid pro quo.

The fundamental question is why accepting money is corrupt?  What harm does it do?

I believe that, if you can explain that to me, I can explain why knowingly seeking private intelligence from a foreign government (especially one that is not an ally) for political purposes is also problematic.

I'm not saying that information is the same as money.  I'm saying that trying to get secret information from a foreign government has the same problems as trying to get money from a foreign government.

What is the information you are claiming was "secret"?

Should it have been secret?

Are you trying to pitch this like insider trading information?

If you offer money to get out of a legal snafu, that's a bribe.  If you offer a cop information in exchange for leniency, I have never heard anyone call that a bribe or undue influence.

Political candidates, like police, need accurate information to do their job.

You're still missing the point, Pete.  I'm not talking about accepting money in general.  I'm asking about the specific rules for elections.

As I understand it, it is illegal for a campaign to accept money or anything "of value" from foreign nationals or foreign governments.

Why is this illegal?  What is the basis for this law?  What harm does it do for a campaign to get funds or other things "of value" from foreign nationals or governments?

If you can explain to me why we have this particular law on the books, then I think I can explain to you why Trump, Jr. gleefully seeking information from the Russian government to help defeat Clinton is similarly disturbing.  Because Trump, Jr. apparently believed that information was also "of value."

[TheDrake]

It was used in this case, and harm is pretty clear, at least to me. It is a direct influence from outside governments and actors. The presumption being that they do not have the interest of Amercians at heart, and if one imagined a world where America wasn't dripping with money compared to other places, it could easily vault someone into position who didn't represent Americans at all. This affects issues of international trade, various sanctions (Russia's big one), and other big ticket items that could benefit other countries oligarchs (not necessarily their people)

Sadly, there's nothing stopping a candidate from selling their time to the highest American bidder except waterly campaign contribution limits.

Here's a case where it DID apply in practice.

One of the largest and more interesting scandals involving foreign contributions to a presidential election involves the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton, the China’s People Liberation Party, Al Gore, and a Californian Buddhist monastery. The FEC documents describe fundraising attempts by members of the DNC that set prices so foreign nationals could meet with President Clinton and Vice President Gore. In response to these findings, the FEC imposed a civil penalty on the DNC, the International Buddhist Progress Society, and various other actors for a cumulative total of $719,500.

http://www.uky.edu/electionlaw/analysis/foreign-contributions-us-elections

[Pete at Home]

You're still missing the point, Pete.  I'm not talking about accepting money in general.  I'm asking about the specific rules for elections.

I'm not missing your point; I just think you are wrong.  I *am* talking about politicians accepting bribes in general, and I've explained why it's wrong, and you know very well that it's wrong, regardless of whether there's an election going on.  Whether or not there's an election going on has nothing to do with whether taking a bribe is *wrong.*

I decline your request that I explain why it's wrong to specifically take money during an election, because the election has nothing to do with the wrongness as I perceive it.  If you think that accepting INFORMATION from a foreign government during an election is "wrong" (as opposed to illegal) that's your burden of proof if you want to convince us that you actually believe it, let alone that we should believe it.

If you think that what Trump did was illegal, and that the law as you want to apply it is constitutional, then take your case to court.  Seems to me that if y'all had the law on your sides on this one you wouldn't be stirring up lynch mobs.

Riddle me this: say Israel sidles up to Secretary Clinton during the election and says -- pst -- our intelligence confirms that your opponent has a plan to assassinate you.  Has she violated election ethics, based on the "value" of the information from a foreign power?

If you are right on your interpretation of the law, then it's too stupid to be constitutional.

[TheDrake]

Riddle me this: say Israel sidles up to Secretary Clinton during the election and says -- pst -- our intelligence confirms that your opponent has a plan to assassinate you.  Has she violated election ethics, based on the "value" of the information from a foreign power?

It would certainly be unorthodox, which makes it suspicious. Are they deliberately not informing the government through intelligence channels in an attempt to influence the candidate to be favorable toward them? I would think the FBI would be the place to go, not to request a private meeting with Clinton - and then spend the whole time talking about more support for settlements and giving no actual information on the assassination threat... 

Should it be illegal? Is it illegal? Meh. The ways in which foreign interests can get money to the candidate that they want to back makes all but the most inept actors capable of that influence. Pushing that out to information is even more sketchy. I'd prefer that this behaviour be illegal not to disclose to the public, rather than illegal to do. Then voters can decide if it is unseemly or not. But once again, there are so many other influences that go entirely unreported that its not really a hot issue.

[Wayward Son]

You're still missing the point, Pete.  I'm not talking about accepting money in general.  I'm asking about the specific rules for elections.

I'm not missing your point; I just think you are wrong.  I *am* talking about politicians accepting bribes in general, and I've explained why it's wrong, and you know very well that it's wrong, regardless of whether there's an election going on.  Whether or not there's an election going on has nothing to do with whether taking a bribe is *wrong.*

But there is nothing wrong with giving money to a campaign.  That is not considered a "bribe."  But it is illegal for a foreign person or government to give money to a campaign.  So bribes in general do not apply to this conversation.

If you believe that foreign campaign contributions are OK, then say so.  But you've brought up Clinton receiving money from China and the possibility there was some quid pro quo involved with it.  I see the possibility that there was some quid pro quo involved with the information from the Russian government.  Why is one disturbing but not the other? 

I decline your request that I explain why it's wrong to specifically take money during an election, because the election has nothing to do with the wrongness as I perceive it.  If you think that accepting INFORMATION from a foreign government during an election is "wrong" (as opposed to illegal) that's your burden of proof if you want to convince us that you actually believe it, let alone that we should believe it.

But I have outlined why I think getting information from a foreign government is wrong.  For the same reason I see getting money from a foreign person or government is wrong: because it provides undue influence by the foreign person or government who's fate is not tied to our country's.

You also seem to think that information cannot be valuable.  You said, "If you offer a cop information in exchange for leniency, I have never heard anyone call that a bribe or undue influence."

If the information was a legal stock tip from a broker that could make the cop a lot of money, and he got leniency, would you still say it was not a bribe or undue influence?

The information Trump, Jr. was expecting was something he believed would help win the election.  He believed it would be valuable.  If money is valuable, and information is valuable, then why is one illegal and other is not?
 

If you think that what Trump did was illegal, and that the law as you want to apply it is constitutional, then take your case to court.  Seems to me that if y'all had the law on your sides on this one you wouldn't be stirring up lynch mobs.

The problem is that we still don't know what information was offered, and under what terms.  (I assume no one still believes that the Russians needed that  group of people just to talk about adoptions, right? )  Perhaps nothing of substance was offered, or perhaps it was declined.  The story keeps changing, and I'm sure we haven't heard the last version yet.  But until we have evidence of exactly what happened, there is no court case.

But it stinks to high heaven.  He went in there, with company, to hear what they had to offer.  Did he really expect there would be no strings attached?  Did he think it was appropriate to convey whatever offer it was to his father?

Riddle me this: say Israel sidles up to Secretary Clinton during the election and says -- pst -- our intelligence confirms that your opponent has a plan to assassinate you.  Has she violated election ethics, based on the "value" of the information from a foreign power?

If you are right on your interpretation of the law, then it's too stupid to be constitutional.

Obviously taking, or even seeking, information of a possible crime against you or someone else is not trying to get an advantage in an election, even if it is from some foreign power.  So any rule about the ethics of info from a foreigner that makes that illegal is stupid.

But do you really want to make a blanket rule that no secret information from a foreign power can be considered illegal?  Especially when it may come with strings attached?

The information was not advertised as something that would prevent a crime.  It was advertised as something that would help Trump win the election.  If giving money to help Trump win is illegal and unethical, then why is giving information to help Trump win is perfectly ethical?

Information is an odd thing.  If it is spread about, and well known, it has only a small value to the bearer.  But if it is not well-known, or only know to a few people, then it can be extremely valuable.  And worth quid pro quo.

[Pete at Home]

But there is nothing wrong with giving money to a campaign.  That is not considered a "bribe."  But it is illegal for a foreign person or government to give money to a campaign.  So bribes in general do not apply to this conversation

You are wrong. And I will bet that if I searched the Ornery history I would find you right alongside me condemning special interest money on politics. "Campaign finance reform" ring a bell?  We all know passing money to a campaign is something like a bribe but we view it as an unavoidable evil, and we allow this bribery to occur between US citizens and campaigns.

Foreign governments do not have this special dispensation to bribe during political campaigns.

[Wayward Son]

OK, so why is special interests giving money to a campaign akin to a "bribe?"  What makes them giving money to a campaign wrong?

And how does it differ from you or me giving money to a campaign?

It's because the candidate is indebted to the donor, right?  Because he knows he might not get elected next time if he doesn't get the contribution from the special interest again.  Because he knows, on some level, his victory was dependent on that contribution.

So why is it any different with secret information?  Without it, the candidate might lose the election.  Without more the next election, he might not win that one.  So he wants to stay on the good side of the contributor, just in case they have more, or have some on him.  He is indebted.

The medium is different, but the results are the same.

[Pete at Home]

OK, so why is special interests giving money to a campaign akin to a "bribe?"  What makes them giving money to a campaign wrong?

Like I said, it's wrong for exactly the same reason it's ok to give politicians money while in office. Because there's no reasonable way to interpret the gift other than as a bribe to purchase influence.

[Pete at Home]

So why is it any different with secret information?  Without it, the candidate might lose the election.  Without more the next election, he might not win that one.  So he wants to stay on the good side of the contributor, just in case they have more, or have some on him.  He is indebted.

If your reasoning weren't full of bad assumptions and absurd blind side omissions, then it should be illegal to allow police and prosecutors to receive information from criminals.

What I mean by your absurd blind side omissions is that you ignore the valid things that a candidate might do with inforation that simply don't apply to money.

[Gaoics79]

So why is it any different with secret information?

Why is giving a woman affection and compliments in the buildup to sex considered seduction and wooing, but giving her money considered prostitution?

Because giving money has always had a certain cultural significance that cannot be equated with softer forms of persuasion. I hand you a $20 bill and that means something very specific, whereas just whispering some information in your ear, even valuable information, doesn't. Because I can give you information that you may or may not find useful, that may or may not assist your campaign, that you may or may not be thankful for (depending on what it is about) but a suitcase full of cash is unambiguous and always connotes a bribe.

So yes, could information be considered a bribe? Maybe, in the right circumstances. Does agreeing to listen passively to something someone tells you mean, a priori, that you are accepting a bribe and "influence", let alone control? Certainly not.

Does it make the slightest sense to me that by the mere act of *listening* to something someone tells you constitutes a crime or unethical act? I find that hard to swallow.

The proof will be in the pudding. If what Trump Jr. did was illegal, then they should arrest him and charge him for it. I have my doubts that it is, notwithstanding what is being heavily implied here and elsewhere. But we'll see if anyone is prepared to follow this through.

[yossarian22c]

So why is it any different with secret information?

...

Because giving money has always had a certain cultural significance that cannot be equated with softer forms of persuasion. I hand you a $20 bill and that means something very specific, whereas just whispering some information in your ear, even valuable information, doesn't. Because I can give you information that you may or may not find useful, that may or may not assist your campaign, that you may or may not be thankful for (depending on what it is about) but a suitcase full of cash is unambiguous and always connotes a bribe.

So yes, could information be considered a bribe? Maybe, in the right circumstances. Does agreeing to listen passively to something someone tells you mean, a priori, that you are accepting a bribe and "influence", let alone control? Certainly not.
...

Insider trading is illegal. That is the closest thing I can think of that is a real crime that is predicated on the sharing of "secret" information. If the Russians really had evidence that Hillary committed a crime the Trump campaign could have referred them to the FBI or asked for the FBIs help in looking into the info. Instead all of Trump's top advisers took a secret meeting with a bunch of Russian's with ties to Russian oligarchs and potentially the Russian government. If there really is absolutely nothing here I think its interesting how insistent they have been so insistent that Trump had no knowledge of the meeting. I find Trump's ignorance of the meeting somewhat unlikely as it was attended by his son, hit son-in-law, and his campaign manager.

Honestly I think there was probably no intent (~70%) to break the campaign finance laws that prohibit campaigns from accepting "anything of value" from foreign nationals or governments. However I think this is just one example of the inexperience of Trump and his advisers on the world stage or maybe just the general attitude of the super rich that laws don't apply to them.

[Pete at Home]

Insider trading is illegal

The crime there is trading with secret information. Not receiving information and disclosing it to the public.

[yossarian22c]

Insider trading is illegal

The crime there is trading with secret information. Not receiving information and disclosing it to the public.

A hedge fund manager takes a secret meeting with a corporate executive where they are promised insider information, maybe an Enron executive in 2000 claims the company is about to go bust that they have been lying about financials for years. The hedge fund manager instead of contacting the SEC takes the meeting to see if there is anything useful. Is he guilty of conspiracy or not? From a legal standpoint maybe not but it certainly is the first step towards committing a crime.

[TheDrake]

Insider trading is illegal

The crime there is trading with secret information. Not receiving information and disclosing it to the public.

We don't really know what they would have done with the information they never got.

They could just as easily have blackmailed Hillary as disclose it to the public, or once in control of the information release it at the time and place of their choosing. Or keep it secret and share it only with select donors who would be outraged and funnel even more money to superPacs.

[Mynnion]

Why do we assume they got nothing from the meeting?  I'm not saying they did but we only have the word of those who benefit from a denial.  The fact that the DNC emails were released shortly after might have come as a result of the meeting.  Removal of sanctions that Trump has promoted is a nice incentive on the Russian side.  None of this may be connected but saying that nothing of value was gained or given based on the words of those already shown as liars strikes me wishful thinking

[Pete at Home]

Insider trading is illegal

The crime there is trading with secret information. Not receiving information and disclosing it to the public.

A hedge fund manager takes a secret meeting with a corporate executive where they are promised insider information, maybe an Enron executive in 2000 claims the company is about to go bust that they have been lying about financials for years. The hedge fund manager instead of contacting the SEC takes the meeting to see if there is anything useful. Is he guilty of conspiracy or not?

Possibly.  Do you understand how you just proved that the reason cannot apply to Trump Jr?  What's the actus reus that you're implying that Jr conspired to commit?

[Pete at Home]

But again, why are you arguing technicalities?  If you think the law is on your side, go to court.  Technical illegalities do not give you a reasonable expectation for everyone to get freaked out and constipated over Trump pulling tags off his mattress.

[Seriati]

Insider trading is illegal

The crime there is trading with secret information. Not receiving information and disclosing it to the public.

A hedge fund manager takes a secret meeting with a corporate executive where they are promised insider information, maybe an Enron executive in 2000 claims the company is about to go bust that they have been lying about financials for years. The hedge fund manager instead of contacting the SEC takes the meeting to see if there is anything useful. Is he guilty of conspiracy or not? From a legal standpoint maybe not but it certainly is the first step towards committing a crime.

You guys are confused about what insider trading actually is, and when it occurs.  Without a doubt the meeting described above is not actionable, a crime or insider trading.  Every day hedge funds, and plenty of others, get inside information about the companies they own, that doesn't make it a crime to own the company, it makes them insiders for the purpose of trading.  Usually that means deferring the trade until the information is made public.

You are all also skipping over a vital element that is required to have a liability for insider trading.  The tipper has to receive a personal benefit.  No one goes to jail for insider trading if the President of a Company tells a random stranger on the street inside information and that person then trades on it.  The insider who gave up the information could have legal liability to the company, but for breach of trust or breach of duty, not insider trading.

In any event, this is a complete side track until Wayward explains what was secret about the information.  The email implied it was evidence of  a crime, weren't you just arguing last week that there's no entitlement to keep that kind of information secret?

It's beyond silly to try and create a rule that defines "benefit" to mean literally anything beneficial.  How would you distinguish a Russian government official who calls a press conference and publically discloses crimes of Hillary Clinton but prefaces it with the statement that they are bringing this to light specifically because they like Trump better and want to help him? 

Bringing forward true and relevant information on a candidate is a public service even if it helps one candidate more than another.

If a foreign national reveals a voter fraud perpetrated by the Clinton campaign, should we "disallow" such help and count the fraudulent votes as well?

Honestly, I feel like the left has jumped the shark at this point, and the lost the ability to distinguish between good "arguments" and rational positions.  You know for instance foreign nationals can volunteer their time to help a campaign?  If the crazy interpretation you are holding to here were appropriate then all that aid, which usually favors one party, is a cause for concern as well, right?

[TheDrake]

But, Seriati, if there's nothing wrong with the meeting, surely there is a problem failing to disclose it on official documents when required to? And why does that form specifically ask about meetings with foreign nationals? Because it represents a potential security threat.

So while I don't think that any law was broken here, its not "nothing to see here, move along" territory, is it?

There are edge cases, btw, in terms of foreign nationals:

In AO 2014-20 (Make Your Laws PAC), the Commission concluded that a political action committee could accept assistance from a foreign national in developing intellectual property for the PAC, such as trademarks, graphics, and website design because the services accepted by the PAC would fall under the volunteer exemption. Similarly, in AO 2004-26 (Weller), the Commission held that a foreign national could attend, speak at campaign events for a federal candidate, and solicit contributions to the campaign. However, the Commission cautioned that the foreign national could not manage or participate in any of the campaign committee’s decision-making processes. See also AOs 2007-22 (Hurysz) and 1987-25 (Otaola).

In MUR 5987, the Commission examined a situation in which a foreign national provided an uncompensated musical concert performance as a volunteer for a federal candidate’s campaign as part of a fundraising event. The candidate’s campaign had paid all of the costs of hosting the concert, including the rental of the venue and equipment and providing security. The performer had merely provided his uncompensated volunteer services to the campaign and had not participated in any of the campaign’s decision-making. Based on these facts, the Commission found no reason to believe that the foreign national or the federal candidate’s committee had violated the Act’s foreign national prohibition.

Note that the litmus test for volunteer exemption is...

Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer "exemption" as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone.

If Russian lawyers are anything like their American counterparts, I'm assuming the meeting was billable.

[Seriati]

But, Seriati, if there's nothing wrong with the meeting, surely there is a problem failing to disclose it on official documents when required to? And why does that form specifically ask about meetings with foreign nationals? Because it represents a potential security threat.

Maybe you should cite the required disclosure.  There is no requirement to disclose on "official documents" a meeting with foreign nationals.  There are two relevant requirements (of which I'm aware, paraphrasing of course), meetings with foreign officials - which this does not appear to be - and disclosure of foreign nationals with whom you have a close continuing relationship - which this is not.

Maybe you have better knowledge, please provide the citation if you do.

Honestly, if you had to disclose at the level you are implying, it'd be impossible to meet the burden if you lived and or worked in a major metropolitan area.  Heck some of my kid's friends parents are foreign nationals, some are citizens borne in a different country how would I know the difference?  As I said before, there are 600,000 people of Russian nationality living in NYC, everyone there knows a Russian.

So while I don't think that any law was broken here, its not "nothing to see here, move along" territory, is it?

It really is.  Or more it's selective enforcement of a rule that's at best grossly overbroad.

There are edge cases, btw, in terms of foreign nationals:

These aren't edge, they fit into the existing rules.  The point, however, is that clearly we are able to parse that some contributions, even material ones, are viewed as benefits that don't risk causing a problem.

I'm struck too by the idea of what "should" have happened.  What exactly is that?  What if they had been handed information of a crime and immediately publicaly disclosed it or handed it to the authorities?  Is that something that causes you concerns?  What if they had also disclosed the source - not that information related to a criminal prosecution in Russia would be a mysterious source.

Given that this seems to be exactly how the Trump Dossier was used - disclosed to the media and sent to the authorities - and it was sourced, and potentially bought, from foreign agents, I'm finding the hypocrisy a little thick on this.

Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer "exemption" as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone.

If Russian lawyers are anything like their American counterparts, I'm assuming the meeting was billable.

Maybe, but it also didn't provide anything of benefit to the campaign.  I'm not aware that a campaign is barred from talking to foreign nationals who have jobs.

[Seriati]

I'm going to add this one as a fake news headline from Fox:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/19/justices-allow-strict-enforcement-trump-refugee-ban.html

The SC left in place the expanded definition of close relatives, which the article discloses (though I think this got clearer in later versions), but the headline makes it sound like a big win, rather than what it actually was.

I don't see, by the way, the expanded family group as something that can hold up.  The government is entitled to broad deference on something like that and the court just replaced it with its own will.  While I agree that grandparents should have been allowed in the first place, cousins are not a category that should automatically be included.  Plenty of people barely know their cousins, and that is so easy to abuse.

[TheDrake]

Maybe you should cite the required disclosure.  There is no requirement to disclose on "official documents" a meeting with foreign nationals.  There are two relevant requirements (of which I'm aware, paraphrasing of course), meetings with foreign officials - which this does not appear to be - and disclosure of foreign nationals with whom you have a close continuing relationship - which this is not.

Security form, not election form, and happened well after the meeting in question.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/jared-kushner-russians-security-clearance.html

It is well established that this lawyer did business for the Russian government, and in Kushner's own words was lobbying for a change in legislation. And again, if it were listed on the form, it probably wouldn't have amounted to anything. It's not like those meetings were going to be grounds for denying clearance.

But let's go your way, and say that this meeting didn't rise to that level of requirement. If so, why would Kushner and his people say "oops we forgot and hit send" as opposed to making your claim, that it was never required in the first place.

Maybe, but it also didn't provide anything of benefit to the campaign.  I'm not aware that a campaign is barred from talking to foreign nationals who have jobs.

As far as we know, it didn't. But obviously Kushner wouldn't have taken the meeting if he didn't at least hope to get a boon to the campaign - whether material or not.

Probably the only thing different here from other administrations is that they are really inept at doing these things in a more sly manner.

[Seriati]

Maybe you should cite the required disclosure.  There is no requirement to disclose on "official documents" a meeting with foreign nationals.  There are two relevant requirements (of which I'm aware, paraphrasing of course), meetings with foreign officials - which this does not appear to be - and disclosure of foreign nationals with whom you have a close continuing relationship - which this is not.

Security form, not election form, and happened well after the meeting in question.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/jared-kushner-russians-security-clearance.html

Not sure why you cited an article that cites to an anonymous source talking about Kushner's form.

I've looked at what I think is the actual form.  I don't see this question.  Please point it out to me.

It is well established that this lawyer did business for the Russian government, and in Kushner's own words was lobbying for a change in legislation.

Not the test for whether they are an official.

But let's go your way, and say that this meeting didn't rise to that level of requirement. If so, why would Kushner and his people say "oops we forgot and hit send" as opposed to making your claim, that it was never required in the first place.

Your link is to something else entirely, and from April, where this story broke in July.  It says in your own article that he told the FBI he would be supplementing the form within 24 hours of submitting it. 

Honestly, take a look at the form.  I can't imagine anyone filling it out perfectly, unless they've never had any real leadership position in politics or business.

Maybe, but it also didn't provide anything of benefit to the campaign.  I'm not aware that a campaign is barred from talking to foreign nationals who have jobs.

As far as we know, it didn't. But obviously Kushner wouldn't have taken the meeting if he didn't at least hope to get a boon to the campaign - whether material or not.

So what.  Again, this meeting on the corruption scale is way down at the bottom maybe even a zero given it didn't apparently cover the topic promised.  It's being blown out of proportion solely based on the parties involved.  If you cared about corruption, there was blatant corruption in the last election and it got less than 1% of the coverage that's being given here.  I'm left asking myself why people are trying to make this into something more than it is, and can't see any real legitimate reason.

Probably the only thing different here from other administrations is that they are really inept at doing these things in a more sly manner.

No.  The only thing different is the coverage.

Imagine, if the Trump admin started meeting with lobbyists off premises specifically to avoid them being on the White House visitor logs.  We would literally never here the end of it, and that is something that actually happened.

Imagine, if Meuller were to request a Trump server and he were to "wipe" it and only send over print outs of the emails on it that he thinks are relevant.  The press would never let it go.

Imagine, if the Russians were to hack into the IRS, steal and release Trump's tax returns.  Where the press got the information would be relevant to their stories for about 35 seconds, then years of dirt and muckraking coverage.  Exact opposite of what they are doing on the DNC emails.

We need a national moment of zen or something, where we cut through the BS and stop just falling for spin hook, line and sinker.

[Wayward Son]

Then, of course, there is always the obvious Fake News stories that turn out to be completely true.

Bear riding on motorcycle sidecar.

[godsblackestcrow]

Imagine, if the Russians were to hack into the IRS, steal and release Trump's tax returns.  Where the press got the information would be (spin spin spin BS spin spin spin spin spin, spin spin BS spin spin spin BS spin spin spin spin spin BS spin spin spin spin spin. Spin spin spin BS spin spin BS spin).

We need a national moment of zen or something, where we cut through the BS and stop just falling for spin hook, line and sinker.

Maybe if people would stop telling themselves that their blatant biases were actually intellectual integrity, that moment of enlightenment could actually happen...

[Pete at Home]

The classic sophists such as Gorgias would respond that integrity itself is a "bias." 

But then they would argue also that there's no such thing as "enlightenment." that words themselves are no more than a means of compulsion, and that persuasion is coercion. 

If curious why this is relevant, see http://www.classics.ucsb.edu/classes/cla175-s09/Gorgias.pdf and connect the dots.

Edited to correct the link

[Greg Davidson]

Imagine, if Meuller were to request a Trump server and he were to "wipe" it and only send over print outs of the emails on it that he thinks are relevant.  The press would never let it go.

Awesome ignorance, Seriati. Really, a perfect illustration of either your ignorance of relevant history or your willingness to fabricate arguments that you know are false.

Remember the time when the Democrats were investigating the Bush Administration's firing of Republican-appointed State's Attorney Generals when they refused to fabricate evidence of voter fraud. It turns out that the Bush White House was using a private server, and when the emails were requested, the Administration refused to do so and said that 24 million emails had been deleted.  Here's substantiation from Snopes, which clarifies that more than half the emails were eventually recovered, still leaving 8 million emails - those are White House emails, at least as important as Secretary of State emails - that were never found. And 8 million is about 240 times more deleted emails than 30,000.

http://www.snopes.com/g-w-bush-lost-22-million-e-mails/

Remember how we had three years of hearings and national headlines about the Bush Administration emails? No? Neither does anyone else.

[Pete at Home]

What content of the Bush emails are you claiming were comparably damming to the HRC ones, Greg?

At this point, reducing the myriad of problems associated with HRC's emails to "the e-mail issue" of her negligent coversecurity is grotesque gaslighting.

 

[Greg Davidson]

The investigation was over whether the Bush Administration was systematically pressuring States Attorney Generals to fabricate evidence of voter fraud in order to use as a justification for voter suppression laws. The Attorney General and eight other members of the Justice Department wound up resigning - that's a pretty strong indicator of something more damming than . As part of the investigation, it was discovered that the Bush White House was using a private email server to conduct government business and was not even in technical compliance with the laws on record-keeping (which Hillary Clinton was). 

Despite this vastly greater use of an unsecured private server at a higher level of government, Seriati's point is totally disproven that Democrats would respond more extremely to use of a private email server than Republicans did for Clinton.

And there is no telling how much classified information was revealed through those 22 million emails, because they never got the intense level of scrub that Hillary Clinton's 30,000 did. And we still don't know what was in the Clinton emails (remember, quoting New York Times articles about Snowden or Karachi Times articles about armed drone attacks could have qualified as classified information), but it is extremely unlikely that any part was a damming as when President Trump revealed the identify of the top HUMINT source within ISIS as being an Israeli agent.   

[Pete at Home]

The investigation was over whether the Bush Administration was systematically pressuring States Attorney Generals to fabricate evidence of voter fraud in order to use as a justification for voter suppression laws. The Attorney General and eight other members of the Justice Department wound up resigning - that's a pretty strong indicator of something more damming than .

"More damning than."  Than what?  You can't even say it!  Come on, Greg, out with it.  Articulate what scandals were exposed in the Clinton and DNC emails, and let's weigh which was more damning.  The fact that you say more damning than [period]--the fact that you evade saying what the other side is, suggests that you know as well as me that the statement doesn't stand to scrutiny.