Uh -oh - Traitor Trump asked lawyers if he can pardon, family, friends and himself

[fuji]

Up until now "a thing of value" has always been held to be nothing besides money.

Untrue, providing a good or service for free that would normally be paid for is a think of value, for example.

You're going to open the door for even worse than Citizens United if you go down this road -- every foreign government in the world is going to be allowed to use the full force of its state, its intelligence services, its espionage, etc., in order to influence American elections and your'e going to have to like it.

Elections will be decided by whichever state is willing to throw the most resources at swinging it -- so long as they don't actually donate money they can pay their own people extensively to swing your elections.

 

[Butler1000]

I've already told you I don't think it qualifies, I think when our side exposes foreign traitors it's a good thing, and I'm all in favour of whatever means result in traitors being exposed.

Legally you would be wrong. You don't get to pick who amongst foreigners can interfere. It either is or isn't legal. And right now it is.

Feel free to advocate to make it illegal. But right now it's nothing that can result on charges.

 

[Butler1000]

Untrue, providing a good or service for free that would normally be paid for is a think of value, for example.

You're going to open the door for even worse than Citizens United if you go down this road -- every foreign government in the world is going to be allowed to use the full force of its state, its intelligence services, its espionage, etc., in order to influence American elections and your'e going to have to like it.

Elections will be decided by whichever state is willing to throw the most resources at swinging it -- so long as they don't actually donate money they can pay their own people extensively to swing your elections.

Friendly can can interfere as well. For their betterment. There is no such thing as altruistic interference.

 

[fuji]

Legally you would be wrong. You don't get to pick who amongst foreigners can interfere. It either is or isn't legal. And right now it is.

Feel free to advocate to make it illegal. But right now it's nothing that can result on charges.

Legally it does matter. When spies on our side gather information about foreign agents operating in the country, that's their job, and there's lots of law to protect them doing it.

 

[fuji]

But there is the heart of the matter. Clearly exposing defence secrets is against your own county, but is saying I wish I had dirt on my opponent acting against your own country? That seems to be far from clear cut and has very political overtones.

Do you really need to ask me whether it's ok to collude with Russian spies, trying to acquire information obtained through foreign espionage against the United States??

 

[Butler1000]

Legally it does matter. When spies on our side gather information about foreign agents operating in the country, that's their job, and there's lots of law to protect them doing it.

Again. They weren't gathering information on spies.

They were gathering information on a presidential candidate.

Or are you now saying Trump is a spy?

 

[Aardvark154]

Untrue, providing a good or service for free that would normally be paid for is a think of value, for example.

For this proposition you cite the ruling in which case or FEC hearing?


_________________________________


If hackers from Russia committed a crime, and I am not implying that they didn't, then charge them with the crime.

 

[Butler1000]

Yes they were, they were gathering information on attempts by foreign agents to extort and control aUS politician.

And the excuse used by the Russians was information about Clinton and her Russian connections. The exact same thing.

So you once again go after one. Go after the other.

 

[Butler1000]

No, the Russians simply hacked Clinton's email. There's no excuse for that -- it's criminal. You really need to stop defending Russian espionage against the United States.

It is NOT the same thing when we spy on them. You need to figure out which side you're on.

The Russians used that as the pretext for the meeting with Trump Jr. That they had information about Clinton's Russian connections. That's a matter of public record.

So you see the very argument you claim that makes the Steele Dossier somehow valid is the exact same for the Trump Jr. Meeting.

No getting around it now fuji. Either the Steele Dossier is espionage or the Trump Jr meeting is clean. By your own standard.

I'll let you decide now which you prefer.

 

[toguy5252]

For this proposition you cite the ruling in which case or FEC hearing?.

The opinions are divided. There are certainly opinions that go both ways. But if campaigns pay a lot of money for opposition research why wouldn't the research which is the fruit of the endeavor be something of value? Just sayin

 

[Butler1000]

The opinions are divided. There are certainly opinions that go both ways. But if campaigns pay a lot of money for opposition research why wouldn't the research which is the fruit of the endeavor be something of value? Just sayin

Careful. Because Clinton did pay money for the Steele Dossier. So Did Bush. And even the FBI contemplated paying more.

Do you see now that it's legal when the FBI thought about it?

 

[Butler1000]

Again, I don't have any problem with our side collecting espionage on the other side, in this case Trump got caught up in that because he's connected to enemy spies and now he has some explaining to do. Hopefully under oath, before Congress.

And by your standards "our side"(trump) was looking into collecting knowledge of collusion by Clinton.

Same thing. You can't win this because of the existence of the Steele Dossier and precedent. It's legal, and fair game according to Washington rules.

All this is now is an administrative action and fishing expedition. They can't even get him under oath it's so minor. And they will end up with nothing because there is nothing.

About the worst that can come of this is Jared is out of the WH. A scalp collected. And a pissed off President and further entrenchment of the War.

 

[toguy5252]

Careful. Because Clinton did pay money for the Steele Dossier. So Did Bush. And even the FBI contemplated paying more.

Do you see now that it's legal when the FBI thought about it?

Clinton did not pay for the dossier except in the imagination of alt right conspiracy sites. It was originally commissioned by Republicans who were supporting other candidates in the primaries. Subsequently some Democratic outfit did take it over but there is no evidence that it had anything to do with Clinton. In any event it is a fundamentally different situation and as much as it is in the interests of Trump and his supporters to conflate the 2 they are nothing at all alike. There is nothing wrong with opposition research. It is fundamentally different than a foreign government trying to influence to outcome of an election.

 

[mandrill]

Careful. Because Clinton did pay money for the Steele Dossier. So Did Bush. And even the FBI contemplated paying more.

Do you see now that it's legal when the FBI thought about it?

The pathetic obsession with Hillary continues. I predict that Butler will degenerate to the point that he starts to follow Hillary around and search her garbage for "clues" about her "conspiracies".

 

[fuji]

And by your standards "our side"(trump) was looking into collecting knowledge of collusion by Clinton.

No he wasn't. That's a lie. Your better than that.