Can anyone please tell me if the liberals are claiming that no democrat has ever tried to dig dirt?

[bendog]

Conservatives keep missing the point

Wah...wah.....wah.......Democrats try to dig up dirt too! <sob>

The point is the Russians offered Lil Donnie secret information about Hillary and he jumped at it. The same Russians who were under economic sanctions at the time, the same Russians being led by Vladimir Putin

And Lil Donnie jumped at the chance

And NO..........You can't say anyone else would have done the same

Actually were you paying attention the Russians dangled a carrot in order to get a meeting with him, as it turned out they had no "info". Of course we can say anyone would have done the same, what a stupid, clumsy attempt to control the narrative.

Name the time the Russians gave direct intelligence to a dem to discredit a republican, Put up or die.

If this is directed at me you are not an intelligent kid.

whhhhifffffff Die mofo

 

[Care4all]

the Turk was a business man....

Trump Jr agreed to get this information from a Russian Govt Lawyer as part of the Russian government's support for Donald Trump.

THE EMAILS STATE such, so the Turq example does not relate?

But your whole argument hinges on this having "value", and as I have shown by the LAWYER posting this information, the assignment of value to information is tenuous at best.

Lawyers...prosecutors vs defense lawyers, often disagree....so, we will see!

If the "anti-trump" view of this situation took precedent no one would be able to provide information to anyone on any candidate. if information had value it would fall afoul of campaign finance regulations as well. CNN could be accused of providing aid to Democrats if they did research and got damaging information on a Republican Candidate.

under campaign finance laws, campaigns or PACS file their opposition research costs.

Costs of people on Staff. This concerns volunteered information.

this concerns an adversary government giving for free dirt on the American candidate's opposition.

THERE IS a monetary value, and a value to helping the candidate win through such means as this research information....and if it was stolen information by the Russian government then other additional crimes could be in play.

The lawmakers didn't stop at just money donations solicited and received by foreign govts in the law, they added anything of 'value'.

 

[martybegan]

But your whole argument hinges on this having "value", and as I have shown by the LAWYER posting this information, the assignment of value to information is tenuous at best.

Lawyers...prosecutors vs defense lawyers, often disagree....so, we will see!

If the "anti-trump" view of this situation took precedent no one would be able to provide information to anyone on any candidate. if information had value it would fall afoul of campaign finance regulations as well. CNN could be accused of providing aid to Democrats if they did research and got damaging information on a Republican Candidate.

under campaign finance laws, campaigns or PACS file their opposition research costs.

Costs of people on Staff. This concerns volunteered information.

this concerns an adversary government giving for free dirt on the American candidate's opposition.

THERE IS a monetary value, and a value to helping the candidate win through such means as this research information....and if it was stolen information by the Russian government then other additional crimes could be in play.

The lawmakers didn't stop at just money donations solicited and received by foreign govts in the law, they added anything of 'value'.

Again, things of value like cars, property, jewelry, fur coats, etc.

The more you try to stretch to get a gotcha moment the more you risk people ignoring an actual gotcha.

 

[rightwinger]

Conservatives keep missing the point

Wah...wah.....wah.......Democrats try to dig up dirt too! <sob>

The point is the Russians offered Lil Donnie secret information about Hillary and he jumped at it. The same Russians who were under economic sanctions at the time, the same Russians being led by Vladimir Putin

And Lil Donnie jumped at the chance

And NO..........You can't say anyone else would have done the same

Actually were you paying attention the Russians dangled a carrot in order to get a meeting with him, as it turned out they had no "info". Of course we can say anyone would have done the same, what a stupid, clumsy attempt to control the narrative.

No, nobody else would have done the same

Anyone else would have been suspicious of direct contact with Russia to influence an election

 

[rightwinger]

Lawyers...prosecutors vs defense lawyers, often disagree....so, we will see!

If the "anti-trump" view of this situation took precedent no one would be able to provide information to anyone on any candidate. if information had value it would fall afoul of campaign finance regulations as well. CNN could be accused of providing aid to Democrats if they did research and got damaging information on a Republican Candidate.

under campaign finance laws, campaigns or PACS file their opposition research costs.

Costs of people on Staff. This concerns volunteered information.

this concerns an adversary government giving for free dirt on the American candidate's opposition.

THERE IS a monetary value, and a value to helping the candidate win through such means as this research information....and if it was stolen information by the Russian government then other additional crimes could be in play.

The lawmakers didn't stop at just money donations solicited and received by foreign govts in the law, they added anything of 'value'.

Again, things of value like cars, property, jewelry, fur coats, etc.

The more you try to stretch to get a gotcha moment the more you risk people ignoring an actual gotcha.

Information has value

 

[Doc1]

Conservatives keep missing the point

Wah...wah.....wah.......Democrats try to dig up dirt too! <sob>

The point is the Russians offered Lil Donnie secret information about Hillary and he jumped at it. The same Russians who were under economic sanctions at the time, the same Russians being led by Vladimir Putin

And Lil Donnie jumped at the chance

And NO..........You can't say anyone else would have done the same

Actually were you paying attention the Russians dangled a carrot in order to get a meeting with him, as it turned out they had no "info". Of course we can say anyone would have done the same, what a stupid, clumsy attempt to control the narrative.

No, nobody else would have done the same

Anyone else would have been suspicious of direct contact with Russia to influence an election

LOL, sure thing tonto.

 

[martybegan]

If the "anti-trump" view of this situation took precedent no one would be able to provide information to anyone on any candidate. if information had value it would fall afoul of campaign finance regulations as well. CNN could be accused of providing aid to Democrats if they did research and got damaging information on a Republican Candidate.

under campaign finance laws, campaigns or PACS file their opposition research costs.

Costs of people on Staff. This concerns volunteered information.

this concerns an adversary government giving for free dirt on the American candidate's opposition.

THERE IS a monetary value, and a value to helping the candidate win through such means as this research information....and if it was stolen information by the Russian government then other additional crimes could be in play.

The lawmakers didn't stop at just money donations solicited and received by foreign govts in the law, they added anything of 'value'.

Again, things of value like cars, property, jewelry, fur coats, etc.

The more you try to stretch to get a gotcha moment the more you risk people ignoring an actual gotcha.

Information has value

Then CNN is guilty of campaign finance laws every time it does a gushing pieces on Democrats.

Information may have value but it is not an item of value unless someone tries to sell or buy it.

 

[Care4all]

Lawyers...prosecutors vs defense lawyers, often disagree....so, we will see!

If the "anti-trump" view of this situation took precedent no one would be able to provide information to anyone on any candidate. if information had value it would fall afoul of campaign finance regulations as well. CNN could be accused of providing aid to Democrats if they did research and got damaging information on a Republican Candidate.

under campaign finance laws, campaigns or PACS file their opposition research costs.

Costs of people on Staff. This concerns volunteered information.

this concerns an adversary government giving for free dirt on the American candidate's opposition.

THERE IS a monetary value, and a value to helping the candidate win through such means as this research information....and if it was stolen information by the Russian government then other additional crimes could be in play.

The lawmakers didn't stop at just money donations solicited and received by foreign govts in the law, they added anything of 'value'.

Again, things of value like cars, property, jewelry, fur coats, etc.

The more you try to stretch to get a gotcha moment the more you risk people ignoring an actual gotcha.

it can be argued that opposition research HAS VALUE and is PRECISELY what falls in to value, in our election process... not necessarily furs and diamonds....

AND it has GREAT VALUE to the Russian Govt to give this information to a candidate so the foreign govt could have INFLUENCE over the candidate of the foreign government's choice.

 

[Doc1]

Conservatives keep missing the point

Wah...wah.....wah.......Democrats try to dig up dirt too! <sob>

The point is the Russians offered Lil Donnie secret information about Hillary and he jumped at it. The same Russians who were under economic sanctions at the time, the same Russians being led by Vladimir Putin

And Lil Donnie jumped at the chance

And NO..........You can't say anyone else would have done the same

Actually were you paying attention the Russians dangled a carrot in order to get a meeting with him, as it turned out they had no "info". Of course we can say anyone would have done the same, what a stupid, clumsy attempt to control the narrative.

Name the time the Russians gave direct intelligence to a dem to discredit a republican, Put up or die.

If this is directed at me you are not an intelligent kid.

whhhhifffffff Die mofo

Feel free to try and "kill" me kid.

 

[Care4all]

under campaign finance laws, campaigns or PACS file their opposition research costs.

Costs of people on Staff. This concerns volunteered information.

this concerns an adversary government giving for free dirt on the American candidate's opposition.

THERE IS a monetary value, and a value to helping the candidate win through such means as this research information....and if it was stolen information by the Russian government then other additional crimes could be in play.

The lawmakers didn't stop at just money donations solicited and received by foreign govts in the law, they added anything of 'value'.

Again, things of value like cars, property, jewelry, fur coats, etc.

The more you try to stretch to get a gotcha moment the more you risk people ignoring an actual gotcha.

Information has value

Then CNN is guilty of campaign finance laws every time it does a gushing pieces on Democrats.

Information may have value but it is not an item of value unless someone tries to sell or buy it.

is CNN a foreign government???? This law is about foreign government's influence in our American elections

 

[martybegan]

If the "anti-trump" view of this situation took precedent no one would be able to provide information to anyone on any candidate. if information had value it would fall afoul of campaign finance regulations as well. CNN could be accused of providing aid to Democrats if they did research and got damaging information on a Republican Candidate.

under campaign finance laws, campaigns or PACS file their opposition research costs.

Costs of people on Staff. This concerns volunteered information.

this concerns an adversary government giving for free dirt on the American candidate's opposition.

THERE IS a monetary value, and a value to helping the candidate win through such means as this research information....and if it was stolen information by the Russian government then other additional crimes could be in play.

The lawmakers didn't stop at just money donations solicited and received by foreign govts in the law, they added anything of 'value'.

Again, things of value like cars, property, jewelry, fur coats, etc.

The more you try to stretch to get a gotcha moment the more you risk people ignoring an actual gotcha.

it can be argued that opposition research HAS VALUE and is PRECISELY what falls in to value, in our election process... not necessarily furs and diamonds....

AND it has GREAT VALUE to the Russian Govt to give this information to a candidate so the foreign govt could have INFLUENCE over the candidate of the foreign government's choice.

Value as in value, but not monetary value as the law intended.

Again, reading the review of it by Volokh, you run into serious 1st amendment issues if you consider information as having intrinsic value with regards to the law.

 

[martybegan]

Costs of people on Staff. This concerns volunteered information.

this concerns an adversary government giving for free dirt on the American candidate's opposition.

THERE IS a monetary value, and a value to helping the candidate win through such means as this research information....and if it was stolen information by the Russian government then other additional crimes could be in play.

The lawmakers didn't stop at just money donations solicited and received by foreign govts in the law, they added anything of 'value'.

Again, things of value like cars, property, jewelry, fur coats, etc.

The more you try to stretch to get a gotcha moment the more you risk people ignoring an actual gotcha.

Information has value

Then CNN is guilty of campaign finance laws every time it does a gushing pieces on Democrats.

Information may have value but it is not an item of value unless someone tries to sell or buy it.

is CNN a foreign government???? This law is about foreign government's influence in our American elections

And if you extend the concept of information having intrinsic value, all sorts of other laws come into play regarding other parties.

 

[Care4all]

under campaign finance laws, campaigns or PACS file their opposition research costs.

Costs of people on Staff. This concerns volunteered information.

this concerns an adversary government giving for free dirt on the American candidate's opposition.

THERE IS a monetary value, and a value to helping the candidate win through such means as this research information....and if it was stolen information by the Russian government then other additional crimes could be in play.

The lawmakers didn't stop at just money donations solicited and received by foreign govts in the law, they added anything of 'value'.

Again, things of value like cars, property, jewelry, fur coats, etc.

The more you try to stretch to get a gotcha moment the more you risk people ignoring an actual gotcha.

it can be argued that opposition research HAS VALUE and is PRECISELY what falls in to value, in our election process... not necessarily furs and diamonds....

AND it has GREAT VALUE to the Russian Govt to give this information to a candidate so the foreign govt could have INFLUENCE over the candidate of the foreign government's choice.

Value as in value, but not monetary value as the law intended.

Again, reading the review of it by Volokh, you run into serious 1st amendment issues if you consider information as having intrinsic value with regards to the law.

foreign governments do NOT have first amendment rights....?

 

[Care4all]

this concerns an adversary government giving for free dirt on the American candidate's opposition.

THERE IS a monetary value, and a value to helping the candidate win through such means as this research information....and if it was stolen information by the Russian government then other additional crimes could be in play.

The lawmakers didn't stop at just money donations solicited and received by foreign govts in the law, they added anything of 'value'.

Again, things of value like cars, property, jewelry, fur coats, etc.

The more you try to stretch to get a gotcha moment the more you risk people ignoring an actual gotcha.

Information has value

Then CNN is guilty of campaign finance laws every time it does a gushing pieces on Democrats.

Information may have value but it is not an item of value unless someone tries to sell or buy it.

is CNN a foreign government???? This law is about foreign government's influence in our American elections

And if you extend the concept of information having intrinsic value, all sorts of other laws come into play regarding other parties.

nope, the law we are discussing ONLY INVOLVES foreign governments involvement in to our election process.

 

[martybegan]

Costs of people on Staff. This concerns volunteered information.

this concerns an adversary government giving for free dirt on the American candidate's opposition.

THERE IS a monetary value, and a value to helping the candidate win through such means as this research information....and if it was stolen information by the Russian government then other additional crimes could be in play.

The lawmakers didn't stop at just money donations solicited and received by foreign govts in the law, they added anything of 'value'.

Again, things of value like cars, property, jewelry, fur coats, etc.

The more you try to stretch to get a gotcha moment the more you risk people ignoring an actual gotcha.

it can be argued that opposition research HAS VALUE and is PRECISELY what falls in to value, in our election process... not necessarily furs and diamonds....

AND it has GREAT VALUE to the Russian Govt to give this information to a candidate so the foreign govt could have INFLUENCE over the candidate of the foreign government's choice.

Value as in value, but not monetary value as the law intended.

Again, reading the review of it by Volokh, you run into serious 1st amendment issues if you consider information as having intrinsic value with regards to the law.

foreign governments do NOT have first amendment rights....?

We extend 1st amendment rights to guests of of country, don't we?

 

[martybegan]

Again, things of value like cars, property, jewelry, fur coats, etc.

The more you try to stretch to get a gotcha moment the more you risk people ignoring an actual gotcha.

Information has value

Then CNN is guilty of campaign finance laws every time it does a gushing pieces on Democrats.

Information may have value but it is not an item of value unless someone tries to sell or buy it.

is CNN a foreign government???? This law is about foreign government's influence in our American elections

And if you extend the concept of information having intrinsic value, all sorts of other laws come into play regarding other parties.

nope, the law we are discussing ONLY INVOLVES foreign governments involvement in to our election process.

Again, we are discussing the concept of value of information. You just can't decide value means one thing with regards to this law, then ignore that definition when it comes to another law.

 

[Boss]

nope, the law we are discussing ONLY INVOLVES foreign governments involvement in to our election process.

Again... by YOUR definition, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Debbie Schultz, John Podesta and the DNC should all be tried and convicted of collusion because they received "opposition research" on Donald Trump from a foreign government.

So as soon as I see you trot their asses off to prison, I will take you seriously regarding Trump. Until you do that, shut the fuck up because you're not going to be allowed to impose a double standard here.

If it was wrong for Trump to do it, it was wrong for the DNC too. AND... when it gets to Trump... after you've punished the DNC and their operatives... you're going to need to show us what information was given to Trump. If you can't do that... fuck off!

 

[Care4all]

this concerns an adversary government giving for free dirt on the American candidate's opposition.

THERE IS a monetary value, and a value to helping the candidate win through such means as this research information....and if it was stolen information by the Russian government then other additional crimes could be in play.

The lawmakers didn't stop at just money donations solicited and received by foreign govts in the law, they added anything of 'value'.

Again, things of value like cars, property, jewelry, fur coats, etc.

The more you try to stretch to get a gotcha moment the more you risk people ignoring an actual gotcha.

it can be argued that opposition research HAS VALUE and is PRECISELY what falls in to value, in our election process... not necessarily furs and diamonds....

AND it has GREAT VALUE to the Russian Govt to give this information to a candidate so the foreign govt could have INFLUENCE over the candidate of the foreign government's choice.

Value as in value, but not monetary value as the law intended.

Again, reading the review of it by Volokh, you run into serious 1st amendment issues if you consider information as having intrinsic value with regards to the law.

foreign governments do NOT have first amendment rights....?

We extend 1st amendment rights to guests of of country, don't we?

apparently not, since the Russian Ambassador was legally monitored...

 

[martybegan]

Again, things of value like cars, property, jewelry, fur coats, etc.

The more you try to stretch to get a gotcha moment the more you risk people ignoring an actual gotcha.

it can be argued that opposition research HAS VALUE and is PRECISELY what falls in to value, in our election process... not necessarily furs and diamonds....

AND it has GREAT VALUE to the Russian Govt to give this information to a candidate so the foreign govt could have INFLUENCE over the candidate of the foreign government's choice.

Value as in value, but not monetary value as the law intended.

Again, reading the review of it by Volokh, you run into serious 1st amendment issues if you consider information as having intrinsic value with regards to the law.

foreign governments do NOT have first amendment rights....?

We extend 1st amendment rights to guests of of country, don't we?

apparently not, since the Russian Ambassador was legally monitored...

Monitoring isn't restricting exchange.

 

[Care4all]

Information has value

Then CNN is guilty of campaign finance laws every time it does a gushing pieces on Democrats.

Information may have value but it is not an item of value unless someone tries to sell or buy it.

is CNN a foreign government???? This law is about foreign government's influence in our American elections

And if you extend the concept of information having intrinsic value, all sorts of other laws come into play regarding other parties.

nope, the law we are discussing ONLY INVOLVES foreign governments involvement in to our election process.

Again, we are discussing the concept of value of information. You just can't decide value means one thing with regards to this law, then ignore that definition when it comes to another law.

Information has value

Then CNN is guilty of campaign finance laws every time it does a gushing pieces on Democrats.

Information may have value but it is not an item of value unless someone tries to sell or buy it.

is CNN a foreign government???? This law is about foreign government's influence in our American elections

And if you extend the concept of information having intrinsic value, all sorts of other laws come into play regarding other parties.

nope, the law we are discussing ONLY INVOLVES foreign governments involvement in to our election process.

Again, we are discussing the concept of value of information. You just can't decide value means one thing with regards to this law, then ignore that definition when it comes to another law.

there is value in use, and value in exchange...

I think it says the meaning of value, depends on each individual case....

AS example:
IF it's just talk, with no proof in writing presented....That could be worthless to them....if it was the private emails of Hillary Clinton given to them, then those emails have value in use.... imo

The word value has many meanings and may be used in different senses. Because value is usually a relative term, its true meaning must be determined by the context in which it appears.

Value sometimes expresses the inherent usefulness of an object and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods with it. The first is called value in use, the latter value in exchange. Value in use is the utility of an object in satisfying, directly or indirectly, the needs or desires of human beings. Value in exchange is the amount of commodities, commonly represented by money, for which a thing can be exchanged in an open market. This concept is usually referred to as market value.

Courts have frequently used the word value without any clear indication of whether it referred to value in use or market value.



---------------------------------------------------------

noun
Value is the worth in goods, services or money of an object or person.

1. An example of value is the amount given by an appraiser after appraising a house.
2. An example of value is how much a consultant's input is worth to a committee.