Or you could go to a sane country, where Cuban rum can be bought in every supermarket and liquor store.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Printable View
Or you could go to a sane country, where Cuban rum can be bought in every supermarket and liquor store.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
In a high-school history class on the subject of the Cuban embargo:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Me: But it doesn't exist in other countries, so couldn't you just like go to Canada and fly to Cuba?
Teacher: YOU COULD ALSO MURDER SOMEONE, THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD
Me: ~:confused: ~:confused: ~:confused:
And she wasn't Cuban or (visibly) conservative or anything.
Navy jet shoots down Syrian warplane that attacked US-backed rebels
Quote:
Published June 18, 2017
Fox News
A U.S. Navy F/A-18E Super Hornet launches from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) in the Mediterranean Sea June 28, 2016.
A U.S. Navy F/A-18E Super Hornet launches from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) in the Mediterranean Sea June 28, 2016. (U.S. Navy/Reuters)
A U.S. Navy fighter jet shot down a Syrian government warplane after it attacked Washington-backed fighters near ISIS' de facto capital of Raqqa, the U.S.-led coalition said Sunday.
In a statement, the coalition headquarters in Iraq said that a F/A-18E Super Hornet shot down a Syrian Su-22 that had dropped bombs near positions held by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
The statement said coalition aircraft had "conducted a show of force" to turn back an attack by Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's forces on the SDF in the town of Ja'Din, south of Tabqah.
The coalition said the shootdown took place "in accordance with rules of engagement and in collective self-defense of Coalition partnered forces."
The statement said "a number of SDF fighters" were wounded in the regime's attack, but did not specify further. The coalition also said that Russian officers had been contacted on a special "de-confliction" hotline in an effort to halt the assault.
"The Coalition's mission is to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria," its statement said. "The Coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian, or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but will not hesitate to defend Coalition or partner forces from any threat."
The article mentions US planes bombed Syrian troops within a govt zone a few weeks ago after downing a hostile drone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I can't find anything mentioning a bombing immediately prior to the downing of the drone, but there was one around the same area of An(Al? At?)-Tanf (near one of the largest de-confliction zones in Syria) back in mid-May.
Russia to attack US coalition planes over Syria from now on
Quote:
Russia has said it will treat US warplanes operating in parts of Syria where its air forces are also present as "targets" amid a diplomatic row caused by the downing of a Syrian jet.
The country's defence ministry said it would track US-led coalition aircraft with missile systems and military aircraft, but stopped short of saying it would shoot them down.
A hotline set up between Russia and the US to prevent mid-air collisions will also be suspended.
That wouldn't be the first time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZJsMLcCRV8
It could happen again.
Democrats lose another special election.
At this point, just let them have a super majority and burn down the welfare state. If you can't find fault in a candidate unafraid to say that you don't deserve a living wage...then I say we give them what they want. Poverty and wage slavery
Democrats need to learn how to downplay how much outside money and influence pour into these elections. Republicans have practically made that an art form. Hell, they managed to convince everyone George Bush was a cowboy.
I don't think it is a total loss. The election before the run off way overly inflated expectations. I mean, you can tell people how badly the R vote split but all some see is 11 points to 51%. The Georiga 6th is a massively red district and Ossoff made up something like 19 points. Granted, that includes the fact he had a massive war chest. However I feel like that is more about the limitations of money than anything else.
I live right next to the Georgia 6th. Handel is a moron, and considering how deep red the 6th is, Im not surprised at all that she won. But attack ads work and considering the radio ads and flyers here (even in other districts) were a constant thing for both sides. Some of Handel's were pretty bad, like insinuating terror connections with Ossoff. But like in 2016, Republicans go to the polls, and thats why she won. Read about some Berniebros who were celebrating Ossoff's loss since he wasnt left wing enough. Thats why Democrats lose.
Funny thing is, that seat is up for election in 2018. More of a morale victory than anything else since she will have to defend the seat again soon anyways. Assuming the Democrats put someone forward. Lesson is, bring someone forward who is squeaky clean, lessen the outside money, and someone who has lived in the 6th for most of their lives. That seemed to be the biggest hitting points for the GOP in this race.
Democrats need to let go of purity tests.
They also need to get rid of Pelosi. She has led the House Dems incompetently for almost 15 years, and is an easy talking point against Democratic congressional candidates. "Vote for me, or Pelosi will be in charge again!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Parnell did pretty well in the South Carolina 5th election, lost by ~3 points. Not bad overall, considering how red both districts were.
The entire Democratic party needs to take a step back and re-evaluate whats going wrong. For one thing, the loss of the blue-dog Dems led to the GOP taking over most of the state legislatures. And then the Berniecrats came along and brought the purity tests to a new level. You can't run a Bernie-level progressive in red districts and expect to win much. Campaigning on raising the minimum wage will not have any impact on the wealthy voters who make up a large chunk of the 6th. Also, just campaigning on "fight Trump" doesnt seem to be working, just like "vote against Trump" didnt work last November.
And while I do think Pelosi needs to step back, they dont need to get rid of her. Because if its not Pelosi they will find someone else as their scarecrow. I mean I saw flyers out here which tried to scare voters away from Ossoff because of John Lewis, and hes a hero of the Civil Rights era.
The draft of the Senate bill to replace the ACA has been released.
It is everything you would expect:
-attempts to effectively defund Planned Parenthood
-reduces and then eliminates the Medicaid expansion
-premium support seems to be coming in the form of credits which are less generous
-includes a waiver which allows states to offer plans that do not cover essential services (as enumerated in the ACA); allows them to offer cheaper plans with high deductibles
and much more; it is everything the GOP promised, including a rather beautiful tax reduction for the wealthy.
http://www.businessinsider.com/senat...details-2017-6
It is a draft, so it can change before going to a vote. McConnell wishes for a short time frame for debate/amendment/passage so changes could be limited.
It has been attacked for not going far enough (hawks think it does not go far enough) and going to far (moderates in GOP feel it is cruel)
It will be a balancing act to ensure the votes needed to get passage, and that's only if they can keep the bill under the no filibuster reconciliation method; the defunding of Planned Parenthood may have to be separated.
If you or someone you know is receiving assistance in battling substance abuse, it was nice while it lasted
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...e-devastating/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ion-americans/
'Who the heck is George Will', but the line
is fantastic trash talk.Quote:
Today, conservatism is soiled by scowling primitives whose irritable gestures lack mental ingredients.
Not Trump, but an article about a certain brand of libertarian ideology and the efforts of an oligarchic fifth column to enlist white supremacy in ensuring the supremacy and domination of capital over labor.
Summary of the CBO's findings with a link on the page to the text:
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52752
I was confused; it turns out this was for the House Version.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
The Senate version is here.
ooops! sorry :blush:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
thank you for the correct link :)
It will pass. I have never seen McConnell unable to control his party
Turtle power! :cthulhu:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Slave colony on Mars!
NASA has a top secret project kidnapping children to work a slave colony on Mars!
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...ve_colony.html
Remember when science fiction used to be a niche category of literature? Now its mainstream baby, and Whoa! if true...:laugh4:
https://youtu.be/l3Boz0O1SqM
Could've just said that it's InfoWars, "Trump-endorsed media outlet" sounds very much like a vain attempt at attacking Trump by rabid leftists.
The last paragraph is just more needless drama because hardly anybody gives a shit about what InfoWars say. Although it would be hilarious if Trump said he will look into it.
You can thank Ted Turner for this turn of events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
So North Korea apparently has an ICBM capable of hitting Alaska;
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40502031
What effective response does the U.S. actually have?
Sanctions? The hermit kingdom has endured those and will likely continue to persevere.
War? Well there goes the neighbourhood; even without nuclear arms there are enough missiles on both sides of the border to flatten both countries.
China? Really? If China was interested in doing something it would have acted by now; the "deal maker" will get a chance to show his chops finding a way to leverage the Chinese into doing anything.
Time to reunite the peninsular before they make a nuke small enough to fit that ICBM. Get china to look the other way, evacuate the border of civillians and pour so much airpower into the korean theatre the south korean army wont even need to bring any helmets.
North Korea is an oversized bunker with human shields. Which makes it very difficult. Though there is the argument that a regime change would bring about desired results.
The terrain itself negates a lot of our military 'force multipliers.'
It's one of those terrible situations where only a war could undo it but a is a war worth that cost? There's no way we'd be able to do limited strikes on anything in N. Korea without it escalating into a general peninsular war too.
Greyblades, I don't think there's a way we could get China to look the other way. They have too much old political capital invested in keeping N. Korea as a crazy deterrent/distraction. Even now it is their bargaining chip in trying to get us to ignore their artificial islands. Additionally they don't want to deal with the refugee crisis that would undoubtedly happen or having a strong unified independent pro-US Korea on it's border giving us access to even more of the Yellow Sea for military drills and a military threat to its Manchurian industrial centers in the event of a US/Korea/Japan vs PRC scenario.
As for Trump specific, I just hope he doesn't say anything crazy this trip though that's probably asking too much. Please re-affirm NATO again, don't undermine EU, France, and Germany, and stand by the little allies of ours in the Baltic. Would be nice if the trip to Poland is used to reassert our commitment to our East European allies.
Exactly, nobody wants to deal with the huge ramifications that liberating NK would bring. Good luck re-educating millions of people. As others have said, nothing is going to happen without China's approval, so nothing is going to happen. Unless NK shoots first. Or Trump says something colossally stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Based upon the signs of increased lack of chinese influence over Kim that have been exhibited over the last year; I do not share your convictions on China's continued unconditional support. North korea is becoming a liability greater than a unified korea would present.
Thier millitary is increasingly outdated but thier nuclear capacity is likely to rise over the next decade; I see now as the last window to deal with this problem before retaliation becomes a magnitude more damaging, for all sides. As much as China will drag it's feet I do not think they are short sighted enough to let that window pass.
I agree that China doesn't have as much support for North Korea as they did in the past, however their being as a liability isn't clear yet. The increased tensions haven't hurt China and instead have been used as a bargaining chip instead. They share a goal of wanting US-ROK wargames to cease as well as the US to depart the peninsula, a nuclear armed DPRK at least provides bargaining chips toward achieving that goal. The continuance of the status quo or any escalation of tension short of war only increases China's role as chief mediator and lynch pin for any peaceful solution for which untold concessions will be given. I don't see what liability DPRK actually provides to China short of getting into a real war.
Their military is increasingly outdated but this is mitigated largely by terrain. Unlike the Iraqis fighting in the desert the USAF can't bomb them to impotence, it would take a lot of close fighting at ranges dictated by terrain as well which negate the range advantage of many of our weapons systems. It would be a meatgrinder of a war at the start and would have massive ROK causalities followed by relatively heavy (by our standard) US causalities as our forces piecemeal into theater due to the lack of large nearby formations.
I will agree that this is the last window for the US to deal with it without nuclear missiles raining down on the US and territories (my state of Hawaii is supposedly in range as well). The best window was of course during the mid-90s but Clinton would never have started a war with the DPRK even for the legitimate humanitarian reasons that could have been created and the post-Tiananmen PRC would never have stood by and watched their ally destroyed.
If military force is the only option left then the time is very close indeed. The situation is like a light version of the cuban missile crisis (not quite to M.A.D. level yet). I don't have confidence however that our president could do the diplomatic work needed to put us in the right light in view of Russia, PRC, ROK, and Japan if were to embark on military strikes on nuclear and ballistic missile facilities. I hope that McMaster and Mattis force the type of foresight and planning required but it doesn't look like their advice is heeded by the POTUS very much.
I fear greatly that we might blunder our way into a war instead of actually preparing for one and using that state of preparedness to negotiate from a position of strength (the US Army is not prepared for war in Korea right now). Remember that Saddam thought that George W. was just playing hardball and wouldn't invade without explicit okay from the UNSC. Having more US forces in Korea would also force China to actually take us seriously. The danger that they think we're bluffing is very real given that in the past we've been the restraining influence to ROK's wanted revenge for all sorts of outright acts of war by the north.
As I mentioned in the other thread, the terrain works in US favor too, partly vis-a-vis simultaneous Chinese incursions, and partly with the understanding that forcing through the DPRK field armies to control of the coasts and the cities allows Coalition forces to confine the enemy to hillside bunkers, from which projection will not be possible for long.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
From there, in other words, it's a matter of waiting for the final surrender without needless and risky offensive action to wipe out every last formation. The first week of conflict, or even the first 24 hours, is where the largest loss of life will occur for all parties.
But different scenarios do emerge depending on how pre-emptively Kim Jong Un acts against assembling forces, and how much of the total force the Americans can field in the earliest stages.
The Chinese would be in the best position if they could Trojan Horse an expeditionary force into occupying the country before the full outbreak of hostilities, under the guise of deterring/contributing against the US. That would be pretty anticlimactic, and contrary to US interests, but I suppose it would mean the least loss of life (other than the political executions among the DPRK elites).
In August 1945 it didn't make Japan very difficult. For the US bombs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
That's 100% incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
We need North Korea's yin as the natural opposite to the USA's yang.
Destroying North Korea now would upset the balance and make us lose our moral compass. We might forget how yang Trump actually is.
So the way to deal with this crazy country who are developing a nuclear deterrent is to nuke them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I wonder why they are developing this deterrent...
Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
My remark is to show that in 1945 the Allies brushed aside bunker/human shield considerations about Berlin and Hiroshima. Was it correct? Has anything changed since then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Brushed aside? This is Total War you're talking about. Considerations only generally came on a reciprocal basis, else the victims were lucky to get anything. Germany and Japan would happily have used nuclear weapons on the Allies. Missiles were raining on SE England on a daily basis with zero regard for targeting, except for where the biggest concentrations of people are. Japan were even more indiscriminate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I have suspected the desire to dispell ideas of american bluffing has been the main motivation behind trump's actions on syria.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
I believe North Korea is a liability to china for one simple reason: kim jong-un is not cooperating.
While under Jong-il North Korea barked but heeled, it was a satistfactorial political tool, now the certainty that China can keep the mad dog under control is in doubt it's political value is diminished. Even now China hesitates to crack the whip, lest the whip fails and the political tool fails with it.
The way I see it, as amature as I admit my analysis may be, the key will be getting the south korean army to do the majority of the wetwork. American troops on the front line, or god forbid japanese, will only cement the individual north koreans reluctance to surrender. Any chance of a north korean rout will wither on the vine of it is the "hated white devils" chasing them.
Yes simply bombing the north into submission is out of the question but ensuring that the RoK cannot so much as take a step out of cover without being turned into red mist will give an undeniable advantage to the South.
America should secure the airspace, kill the navy, bomb what can be bombed and help the south do what it's ostensibly been preparing to do for 65 years.
Our media barely mentions the test and its implications. All of the focus is on Putin and Trump mano a mano.
So the consideration was reciprocity, not human shields. If it comes to North Korea bombing others, human shields will be forgotten. Hence there is no use of talking about human shields.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The logic of 'total war' does not admit of the existence of "human shields." There are only targets of varying strategic and tactical value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
You've obviously never used ashigaru correctly.Quote:
The logic of 'total war' does not admit of the existence of "human shields."
Get gud scrub
Not human shields. Simply expendable tactical assets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Donald Trump Jr. posts documents pertaining to interactions with Russian-government agents.
:inquisitive:
But really
:inquisitive:
So his defense is he tried to collude but failed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I am surprised how long it took for the "But Hillary!..." line to appear :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Basically. Apparently the whole family is dumber than a sack of hammers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Actually the defense is: it's not illegal to seek out evidence of a presidential candidate's illegal action.
It's cant even be counted as collusion because Jr wasnt working for the campaign nor is he in official office.
Edit: only laws I could find (on a 5 minute google search) that illegalises forms of collusion is surrounding actual crimes like fixing elections, illegal campaign contributions and public corruption.
None of these is what Trump Jr did or would have committed if the source was legit.
1. Yes it is, when the transfer of information is managed by a foreign national, certainly when it is an agent of a foreign government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
2. Donald Trump Jr. worked with and on his father's campaign, as did Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner.
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93740Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Who to believe? A law professor or Greyblades?Quote:
Hard to see how there is not a serious case here of solicitation. Trump Jr. appears to have knowledge of the foreign source and is asking to see it. As I explained earlier, such information can be considered a “thing of value” for purposes of the campaign finance law. (Update: More on the meaning of “thing of value” here and here.)
It is also possible other laws were broken, such as the laws against coordinating with a foreign entity on an expenditure. There could also be related obstruction, racketeering, or conspiracy charges, but these are really outside my area of specialization and I cannot say.
Tough decision, I guess it's undecided.
The last part of your post might disculpate Trump himself, if he can argue that he wasn't in on the loop on what his son was doing. Without accidentily blurting out something self-incriminating, which wouldn't surprise me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Beyond that: of course I don't know the relevant criminal statutes, but if what he did is not outright illegal I would be highly suprised. The email exchange establishes that:
- Rob Goldstone tried to set up a meeting between little Donald and a Russian government lawyer (that's the wording of the email)
- for the purpose of sharing incriminating information about Hillary Clinton (also explicitly stated in the exchange)
- for the benefit of his father's campaign (again, it says so literally in the exchange)
- little Donald acted so excited that I can only assume the exchange gave him a boner
As for the first part...he has defended himself by claiming this isn't any different from the opposition research that all politicians do on their opponents, a claim that has since then been contradicted by former campaign bosses from both the Democratic and Republican party. The general gist being: if somebody with ties to a foreign government offers to help you in a national election, you stay the hell away from it and in fact should call the FBI.
1. No it isnt; "A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election." Reading this in context with the rest of the law which at no point refers to information it can safely be said that the law only bans exchanges of monetary value in any form, which this in no way was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
As an aside I would advise against using vox as a source of news, their track record is as reliable as brietbart.
2. I meant in terms of official capacity. Admittedly I cannot find any information either way on this issue; was he employed by the campaign or did he just tag along? The latter divests the president of responsibility for Jr's actions but the search engines are clogged with stories about this so I cannot find any definitive proof either way.
As for Jared Kushner and Paul Manfort, perhaps, can you determine they were there on Sr's knowledge or working independantly?
The clause "any other thing of value", which you bolded, is designed exactly to cover non-pecuniary items. If only raw funds were covered by law in these types of scenarios, we would be nearly powerless against organized crime.Quote:
Reading this in context with the rest of the law which at no point refers to information it can safely be said that the law only bans exchanges of monetary value in any form, which this in no way was.
He actively advised his father during the campaign, strategized with other members of the campaign, spoke on the campaign with authority to news media and the public, and gave a speech supporting his father at the RNC.Quote:
I meant in terms of official capacity. Admittedly I cannot find any information either way on this issue; was he employed by the campaign or did he just tag along? The latter divests the president of responsibility for Jr's actions but the search engines are clogged with stories about this so I cannot find any definitive proof either way.
How's that?Quote:
As an aside I would advise against using vox as a source of news, their track record is as reliable as brietbart.
That's the question. I'm sure, in the end, it's possible that President Trump has been the sock puppet for basically everyone around him.Quote:
As for Jared Kushner and Paul Manfort, perhaps, can you determine they were there on Sr's knowledge or working independantly?
Suppose that it goes to trial, and that little Donald gets convicted. What would be the reaction of the American public if President Trump pardons him?
It's obvious what the reaction of Democratic leaning people would be. The reaction of the Republican part seems less obvious nowadays.
His argument is predicated on the definition of contribution being able to contain information. The problem here is that the law does not define contribution nor refer to an outside definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
However the law says Solicit a contribution. This is important because the definition of Solicit as defined by 11 CFR 300.2 is such:Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The focus in this one being on money as well as the language in the law in my last post contributes to the impression that contribution must reffering to something of monetary value to make sense.
This impression is further entrenched by Wex's legal dictionary that defines contribution as:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
With this I can conclude with extreme confidence that contribution refers to a money transfer, and with the law banning "a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value" I can easily say that, no this does not in any way include the transfer of information.
Next time dont base your entire argument on an appeal to authority here; the american legal system like many is filled with partisan hacks who will say anything for money or political gain and they cannot be trusted just on position.
It is so bizarre that you insist on not taking into account the plain meaning of the words which you quote, which address a subset of contribution that is distinguished from "money".Quote:
With this I can conclude with extreme confidence that contribution refers to a money transfer, and with the law banning "a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value" I can easily say that, no this does not in any way include the transfer of information.
This is US law, there is no "plain meaning". Donation of money means money with no strings attached, contribution expects interest.
Case in point on no plain meaning: Thing of value.
Property, not info.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
"Any" means any. This is straightforward. The language "any" is used to cover as many cases as possible.Quote:
n. any other thing of value that is pecuniary or compensatory in value to a person, or the primary significance of which is economic gain.
If they (who framed the law) meant property or money solely, they would say "property or money solely".
"Plain meaning" is a fundamental standard for interpreting law. Not what you want the law to do, but what the text of the law actually says.
I addressed the plain meaning issue of your previous post in my edit. And they largely did say "property or money soley":Quote:
"Any" means any. This is straightforward. The language "any" is used to cover as many cases as possible.
If they meant property or money solely, they would say "property or money solely".
"Plain meaning" is a fundamental standard for interpreting law. Not what you want the law to do, but what the text of the law actually says.
"Pecuniary": relating to or consisting of money. Doesnt apply.Quote:
any other thing of value that is pecuniary or compensatory in value to a person, or the primary significance of which is economic gain.
"primary significance of which is economic gain." Highly difficult to make stick as you have to determine Jr's greater motivation for wanting it is money over say political or personal reasons.
"Compensatory": (of a payment) intended to recompense someone who has experienced loss, suffering, or injury.
Or.
Reducing or offsetting the unpleasant or unwelcome effects of something.
This is only definition in that which could apply to information and both versions requires a loss this would be compensating, which doesnt really apply to Jr.
I dont know whether you will get this if I edit it in, at the rate of reply I would say not, so I am risking a double post.
While you bring up the plain meaning rule, or the literal rule as it is know in Britain, I note that there is another rule that can be applied here: the mischeif rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
This rule when applied expects the court to take in consideration what act the law intended to prevent when interpreting. Based on the title and content of the Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals the intent is rather clear: prevent foriegn nationals from giving US politicians and lawmakers items of value, be they currency or property, in an attempt to prevent corruption. Not prevent foreign nationals from giving US law makers information.
The letter of the law strongly supports this and the spirit of the law is outright states it: this cannot be applied to information such as Trump Jr was offered.
What is not omitted, is admitted. The law does not specifically omit "information", so it will be considered under the literal meaning of "thing of value".Quote:
The letter of the law strongly supports this and the spirit of the law is outright states it: this cannot be applied to information such as Trump Jr was offered.
That's the entirety of the matter.
Here's a treatment from 2010:
Is the intent of the law to avert or mitigate foreign interference with election campaigns? Yes.Quote:
Anything of Value. The term anything of value is not defined in the FECA-BRCA or the regulations. It should be construed according to its common meaning and consistent with the purpose of the FECA-BRCA.
Is receiving opposition research from a foreign national associated with their government an example of foreign interference with a election campaign? Yes.
Is information pursuant to a campaign literally a "thing of value" to the opposing campaign? Yes.
Like anything in life
It's fact specific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Well, it's only two US experts on US law against some British wise guy who has the superior interpretation of the US law of course: https://www.justsecurity.org/42956/o...nation-russia/Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
http://www.businessinsider.de/donald...17-7?r=US&IR=TQuote:
The President stated publicly that he would like to have the Russians locate the stolen emails. Mr. Smith, indicating in various ways association with General Flynn, launches an initiative focused on finding these communications. A Russian national with government connections is able to schedule a meeting with the most senior circle of the campaign by pledging that she had negative information about Mrs. Clinton. In various ways, public and private, the campaign is making its interest clear, and, at a minimum, it is “assenting” to Russian plans to unearth information that constitutes a clear “thing of value” from a foreign source to influence an election.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...t-to-know.htmlQuote:
Brendan Fischer, Federal Election Commission reform program director at the Campaign Legal Center, told Business Insider that the FEC has in past opinions interpreted the definition of "other thing of value" to include non-monetary contributions in relation to the foreign national ban.
"So getting opposition research or dirt on Hillary Clinton, or however they tried to portray it, would constitute a contribution both on the definition of a contribution and on the foreign national contribution ban," he said. "And then solicitation: Did Trump Jr. solicit the contribution? I think there the answer is also yes."
There, even FoxNews aren't sure whether they can jump onto your bandwagon.Quote:
Foreign nationals are prohibited from providing "anything of value" to campaigns, and that same law also bars solicitation of such assistance. The law typically applies to monetary campaign contributions, but courts could consider information such as opposition research to be something of value.
Bradley A. Smith, a former Bill Clinton-appointed Republican Federal Election Commission member, said that based on what's known about the meeting, Trump Jr.'s actions are unlikely to be considered illegal solicitation.
"It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer," Smith said.
But Larry Noble, a former general counsel at the FEC, said the situation "raises all sorts of red flags."
I guess it all depends on the FEC now or whoever is meant to decide about it.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/nationa...a383baa1d.html
This one has a few opinions from legal experts, some of whom agree with you and some of whom don't. It's probably not as clear cut as you make it out to be either way.
Crucially, this email chain has a past and a future. How did it come to Rob Goldstone finding this Russian woman, how did he come into contact with her, how did he learn that she was affiliated with the Russian government, what was Rob Goldstone's relationship to Trump Jr, and the campaign in general... Basically, how did it come to this chain and this proposed meeting. The future, what did Manafort and Kushner have to say, what happened at the meeting, then afterward between the aforementioned individuals, largely reprising the questions. Normally this context is where the suspect would look or point to for relief.Quote:
"It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer," Smith said.
But it's hard to imagine what information could put the situation in a better light, since what is revealed hints that certain notions about Russian activity may have already been accepted as a matter of course by highest levels of the campaign, and is already far beyond mere political shop talk. What do you expect a certain someone may or may not have to offer, and why do you expect it?
E.g. "Mr. Trump Jr. I recommend you meet this Russian woman, she has some good ideas on campaign strategies and avenues of attack on Clinton" vs. "Mr. Trump Jr. I recommend you meet this Russian woman peddling an intelligence package on Clinton with the alleged approval of the Putin regime.' Followed by recognition of the proposal and enthusiastic engagement.There are several analogies here, including corrupt money: advice on how to make money against direct discussion of pecuniary blandishments; and murder: talking about wanting to kill someone against taking premeditated action with the end of killing someone.
Trump Jr went there because the info would directly save them expenses related to opposition research which is labor intensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
There is a direct monetary benefit to receiving the info, even if you want to claim the info itself is not money.
It is not really that simple. Any foreign news organization would be guilty of breaking that law if they publish something negative about a candidate, because it could help the other candidate. And lot of news organizations receive money from their government in some way, shape or form.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Under your interpretation, that law was broken thousands of times during this campaign. Anyone foreign who published anything bad about Trump could be prosecuted.
Foreign news coverage is not normally something a campaign can control. It is not something to be accepted or rejected between principals. In itself it cannot be exchanged as a thing of value, and it is publicly available, and static once promulgated. Conspiracy to fix positive coverage between a campaign and foreign media, maybe it is covered by other election law, but under this one you would probably need adjacent factors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
The mere existence of coverage is clearly not prosecutable under this regulation.
At some point I fully expect Trump to call a press conference, lean into the mic, and scream "THE ARISTOCRATS".
That was a humorous post, you're a high quality humanoid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Almost at the entirely at the beginning of that article:
"The following is an example of a state law on anything of value:"
And so far, all people here have been talking about is the campaign finance angle.
You don't see something intrinsicly bad about accepting help from a foreign government in a domestic election?
Probably it was never presented as coming from a foreign government. And they were primed to assume that there was international "dirt" to be had on Hillary Clinton via the Clinton Foundation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Of course, even if you DO accept that argument, it doesn't say much for their level of naivety or their competence does it?
What is not omitted is admitted (I do find that concept interesting, as it is the other way around in European law, and I presumed it was similar in common law). Your definition of "anything of value" is too broad legally. A pep talk, a morale boost could be "of value".Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Trump, aka Gollum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64mWOoj68qo
I just read the emails Donald Jr released and laughed out loud. I'm certain he sent money to Nigeria at least once in his life. I mean, "Russian Crown Prosecutor"?
Daddy doesn't think I'm smart. He favours Ivanka all the time. I'll show them when I end up owning half of all oil in Nigeria...
Behind his back, apparently the administration staff calls him Fredo. Not kidding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
In the emails, Rob Goldstone, claimed the information was part of "Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Shockingly on the nose.
Didn't we have threads here on the differences between common and Continental law?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
The definition is supposed to be broad. On the other hand, the existence of foreign people outside the US could in itself somehow be of benefit to a campaign. That doesn't make it prosecutable the way a discrete transfer of items would be. As I said, the difference between off-the-cuff moneymaking advice and actually transferring currency.
Well, to have a collusion with Russia, you actually have to collude with Russia. Russian crown prosecutor doesn't really cover that :D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I'm not certain any laws were broken here. Kind of like talking about snatching someone's purse and not doing it. This is something you pay political consequences for, not legal.
I'll take your word for it, as my understanding of common law is much worse than my knowledge of continental law, which is pretty limitedQuote:
Didn't we have threads here on the differences between common and Continental law?
The definition is supposed to be broad. On the other hand, the existence of foreign people outside the US could in itself somehow be of benefit to a campaign. That doesn't make it prosecutable the way a discrete transfer of items would be. As I said, the difference between off-the-cuff moneymaking advice and actually transferring currency.
itself.
It's just that it doesn't make sense logically. Anything can be "of value", it's such a subjective criterion. Let's say Trump got some information from a foreign national - how do you decide if it was of value, meaning how do you decide if it had influence in Trump winning the election?
Of course it is subjective. That's what gives it flexibility, if the argument made is successful to a judge or jury, then it is illegal. Otherwise, it isn't.
The only other option when writing the law is a never ending list of codes that try to cover every last nuance and variance of real world situations. Oh, did this particular instance not exactly fit any of the definitions? Let him go, and in the near future we better add another definition in there.