Mueller hires ANOTHER Trump Hating prosecutor

[JoeB131]

Really? You mean a Campaign tried to dig up dirt on its opponent? Wow, that certainly is something new and unprecedented. What are you 12 years old or something? Politics is a blood sport. Both sides will do just about anything to win. But Donald Trump did not 'Collude' with Russia to 'Hack' our Election. That's absolute Democrat Bullshit.

So he collaborated with the Russians to collect dirt... I have to keep asking, what's in it for Russia?

 

[radical right]

Campaigns having communications with foreign Governments is nothing unusual. It's never been an issue before. It's only suddenly become an issue because Democrats can't accept the fact they ran the most corrupt Presidential Candidate in history, and lost. Donald Trump did not 'Collude' with Russia to 'Hack' our Election. It is a shameful witch hunt. And hopefully it will backfire on Democrats bigtime.

It's which foreign governments they talked to that the problem. Like when Nixon talked with North Vietnam, Reagan talked with Iran, and now Trump talked with Russia.

 

[radical right]

So he collaborated with the Russians to collect dirt... I have to keep asking, what's in it for Russia?

They get to keep Crimea, and maybe take back the Ukraine and Georgia.

 

[Dschrute3]

Absolutely no evidence of criminal wrong doing that she could be prosecuted for by any prosecutor in the USA is what was said!!

She did break some rules though, that were not criminal, just breaking protocol rules, but usually the person at the very top is not subject to most of those rules...at least in a nod and a wink way...., other than a slap of hand at most, just like a CEO position...they can do what they want and not worry about work guidelines if they do not want to... for whatever their business reason...

just like when President Trump broke protocol and declassified top secret information and gave it to the Russians during his oval office, white house meeting with them... it was a no no, but regardless of protocol, it was okay cuz he's the chief executive.

Trump likely didn't do it himself, but his campaign team might have broken some laws of the land...should they get a pass? NO, OF COURSE NOT...unless, it, whatever 'it' might be, was done unwittingly, then a PASS might be warranted.

Trump did not 'collude' with Russia on anything. It's gonna cost Taxpayers $Millions to find out what is already known. There was no 'Russian Hacking' of our Election. That's absolute sore loser Democrat Bullshite. They couldn't beat Trump at the ballot box, so they're trying to carry out a Coup d'etat by way of manufacturing numerous 'scandals.' But I truly believe most Americans recognize what the Democrats are doing. It'll likely backfire on em. I hope so anyway.

Trump likely didn't do it himself, but his campaign team might have broken some laws of the land...should they get a pass? NO, OF COURSE NOT...unless, it, whatever 'it' might be, was done unwittingly, then a PASS might be warranted...

He's not hiring all of these expert prosecutors to lead various parts of the investigation, if there was NOTHING... These experts would not leave their regular jobs for a one week job with the govt.... there is a big job ahead of all of them....! I don't think this is going to be over, anytime soon...

President Trump truly needs to stay out of this, and let them do the job they were hired to do and stop interfering with this investigation....the sooner he does stop his interference, the sooner it will be over....the less that would be said about it in the media....

President Trump has been acting like he is guilty of something with all of his obstruction and wild goose chases he's sent the media on... he's just been crazy!

He needs to stop his antics...the sooner the better!

No one 'Colluded' with Russia on 'Hacking' our Election. It is a witch hunt. Were some connected with his Campaign in communication with Russia? Probably. But that's not uncommon. It certainly isn't an 'Impeachable' offense. It's gonna cost Taxpayers several $Millions to find out what it is already known. It's just a shameful Democrat Coup d'etat attempt. Manufactured B.S.

Russia as known to be releasing stolen information at the time. Trump's campaign as shown to be trying to gather more stolen information to go with it. Sounds like collusion to me.

Really? You mean a Campaign tried to dig up dirt on its opponent? Wow, that certainly is something new and unprecedented. What are you 12 years old or something? Politics is a blood sport. Both sides will do just about anything to win. But Donald Trump did not 'Collude' with Russia to 'Hack' our Election. That's absolute Democrat Bullshit.

Gathering opposition information isn't a crime. Working with a foreign enemy of the US who is involved in espionage to gather that opposition information is.

Uh huh, it's a 'crime' because you lost. Go figure? Hopefully your witch hunt will backfire on y'all. That would be real justice.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL dude isn't even hiding his hatred for President Trump and his FAKE investigation....NO ONE with more than 2 brain cells to rub together will believe a damn thing good or bad that comes from this witch hunt....so much for being NEUTRAL,impossible when you hire people the President personally fired. Its time to end this witch hunt once and for all.Let congress do their own goofy investigation.

If Trump didn't do anything wrong, he has nothing to worry about

Firing Comey was a big mistake. He shouldn't compound it by trying to fire Mueller.

So let's have the police to a house to house search of your neighborhood.

What do you say, asshole?

 

[Care4all]

Trump likely didn't do it himself, but his campaign team might have broken some laws of the land...should they get a pass? NO, OF COURSE NOT...unless, it, whatever 'it' might be, was done unwittingly, then a PASS might be warranted.
Trump likely didn't do it himself, but his campaign team might have broken some laws of the land...should they get a pass? NO, OF COURSE NOT...unless, it, whatever 'it' might be, was done unwittingly, then a PASS might be warranted...

He's not hiring all of these expert prosecutors to lead various parts of the investigation, if there was NOTHING... These experts would not leave their regular jobs for a one week job with the govt.... there is a big job ahead of all of them....! I don't think this is going to be over, anytime soon...

President Trump truly needs to stay out of this, and let them do the job they were hired to do and stop interfering with this investigation....the sooner he does stop his interference, the sooner it will be over....the less that would be said about it in the media....

President Trump has been acting like he is guilty of something with all of his obstruction and wild goose chases he's sent the media on... he's just been crazy!

He needs to stop his antics...the sooner the better!

No one 'Colluded' with Russia on 'Hacking' our Election. It is a witch hunt. Were some connected with his Campaign in communication with Russia? Probably. But that's not uncommon. It certainly isn't an 'Impeachable' offense. It's gonna cost Taxpayers several $Millions to find out what it is already known. It's just a shameful Democrat Coup d'etat attempt. Manufactured B.S.

Russia as known to be releasing stolen information at the time. Trump's campaign as shown to be trying to gather more stolen information to go with it. Sounds like collusion to me.

Really? You mean a Campaign tried to dig up dirt on its opponent? Wow, that certainly is something new and unprecedented. What are you 12 years old or something? Politics is a blood sport. Both sides will do just about anything to win. But Donald Trump did not 'Collude' with Russia to 'Hack' our Election. That's absolute Democrat Bullshit.

Gathering opposition information isn't a crime. Working with a foreign enemy of the US who is involved in espionage to gather that opposition information is.

Uh huh, it's a 'crime' because you lost. Go figure? Hopefully your witch hunt will backfire on y'all. That would be real justice.

IT'S A CRIME, because it breaks the Law.

More on When Collusion with a Foreign Government Becomes a Crime
June 7, 2017
posted by Bob Bauer
This is a follow-up to a first posting on this issue, now up on Just Security.

The text is also reproduced below:

————-

As a potential crime under the campaign finance laws, the Trump campaign collusion with the Russians is well documented. As I contended in a recent essay, there is ample evidence in plain sight. The President applauded a foreign government for its interference in the election and suggested that he would be happy to see more of the same. Asked to disavow it, he declined to do so. Both the candidate and his campaign made extensive use of the material the Russians supplied via WikiLeaks on the campaign trail and in the presidential debates. The Russians had a willing partner in their design to influence the election and a clear signal that their intervention had value. There is more than enough in the public record to warrant inquiry into the Trump campaign’s “substantial assistance” to a foreign government in violation of the campaign finance laws.

Some analysts believe that this is evidence is insufficient. They insist that more is needed in the form of direct communication between the campaign and the foreign government. But they are mistakenly discounting the significance of the evidence in plain sight, and looking in the wrong direction for more proof, if in fact more is needed.


Weighing the Evidence in Plain Sight

It is important to acknowledge there is some skepticism whether any public appeal for support from a foreign power can support a violation of the campaign laws. The skeptic might assume that Trump or his associates could say whatever they said out in the open for anyone–the Russians included–to interpret and act upon as they wished. On this view, for the law to be broken, the understanding between the American campaign and Russian government would have to share some of the elements of a more explicit agreement forged through private channels of communication. After all, Trump might have meant his shout-out to the Russians half humorously. He might have intended to needle the Clinton campaign. And once this material appeared on WikiLeaks, it was fair game for political commentary and debate. The press after all was extensively covering the disclosures as well.

This line of analysis mistakenly assumes that provisions of campaign finance law that define “coordination” set forth the controlling body of rules here. Spending coordinated with a campaign is a contribution, and the coordination can be achieved in various ways–a direct request by the candidate, or the campaign and independent spenders’ use of conduits to arrive at an understanding. These coordination rules are invoked against candidates and groups purporting to make unlimited “independent expenditures” for their benefit. The claim of independence is defeated if the candidate is feeding information to the groups on this coordinated basis to facilitate and enhance the value of the expenditures.

The coordination standard would apply to any spending by foreign nationals that results from these forms of collaboration of a candidate with the spender. If, for example, the Russians placed paid advertising on an Internet platform on a suggestion, direct or indirect, from Trump campaign associates, then the coordination rules would require that the spending be treated as an illegal contribution to the Trump campaign.

But the coordination rules do not apply to communications between a campaign and an “independent” supporter if the strategically useful information that the supporter uses to shape expenditure is publicly available. The rules distinguish, for liability purposes, the public from the more private means through which an independent supporter may obtain the information. Say, for example, that a candidate posts to her website a statement that her campaign wishes to emphasize tax reform in the closing weeks of the campaign. A group that picks up on this suggestion and runs ads praising the candidate’s position on tax reform has not illegally coordinated with the candidate. It is free to use the candidate’s public statement of her needs, interests or strategies.

This exception is not applicable in the case of the separate set of rules in election law: the foreign national spending ban. Such an exception does not appear in the relevant regulation. What appears there instead, without any such escape hatch, is the prohibition on providing the foreign national with “substantial assistance” in contributing any “thing of value” to influence an election. The ban applies to both “direct” and “indirect” support from the foreign national for the benefit of the campaign.

The application of the foreign national rules to reach even the public sharing of information is consistent with its broad purposes as a national security measure. It is built to different specifications than the ordinary contribution limits in accommodating free speech concerns. It necessarily assigns these concerns less weight in cases presenting this high-order government interest–an interest which the court in Bluman v. FEC called “fundamental to the definition of our national political community.” A case brought under this provision may rest in part on open, indirect. “wink-and-nod” collusion in way that one involving only US nationals simply may not. And this application would have special force where it is the candidate or his campaign soliciting a foreign government’s support.

How this provision should be read to constrain the conduct of a candidate seeking foreign support is not just one more esoteric question emerging from the surprising and unconventional 2016 Trump campaign. The reality is that foreign government interventions are not unusual. As one commentator has noted, referring to a major study of this topic, many of the means governments employ to influence elections in other countries are not “as crude as bags of cash,” but include “training locals of the preferred side in campaign techniques, covertly disseminating damaging information or disinformation about the other side, or providing or withdrawing foreign aid to influence the vote.” In other words, these are “things of value,” and we can expect more of the same.

It seems odd, and in the end fatal to the utility of the law, to allow a candidate to openly court these things of value. The Trump campaign did just that. It also spared no effort in hailing the importance it assigned to what the Russians were doing to help it, or to harm the Clinton campaign, or both. This was done in full public view and the story it tells is fairly complete; and yet we may still learn more through the investigation now in progress.

Evidence Supporting a Finding of “Substantial Assistance”

It follows that the evidence in support of the “substantial assistance” would be different in quantity and nature from what is needed for a “coordination” claim. The evidence on the public record shows the Trump campaign encouraging the Russian activities and making active use of the hacked results. If there is a doubt that this is enough, the answer is not to return to the coordination rules, devised mostly for other cases: This only confuses the issue. Rather than only look “externally” for direct communications between campaign and foreign government, the investigation would focus its efforts more “internally,” on the campaign’s intent to build this de facto political alliance with Russia.

Some of the questions would be:

–What do the records of the campaign–and the sworn testimony of campaign aides–establish about the strategic importance to the campaign of these Russian activities?
–Did the campaign decide that it would not denounce the Russians, either on its own initiative or in response to press queries, because it did not wish to discourage them from continuing on their course?
–Was the message intended for Russia discussed during preparations for the presidential debate, which would explain Mr. Trump’s special care in refusing to assign direct blame for the hacking to the government or to reject any assistance from the hackers?
–What were the specific plans for active messaging around the hacked emails–in the press, in the preparation of surrogates for media appearances, and in the remarks prepared for or by the candidate for rallies and his own press interviews?

If there is evidence of this kind, it would match up with the known campaign and Trump handling of the Russia issue and answer any question of intent. The president’s open praise for the hacking, his stated “love” of Wikileaks, his refusal to condemn any state interference in the elections, could not be passed off as “Trump being Trump,” as the candidate just playing with the issue and relishing the coverage that came with it. Instead these actions, together with other evidence of intent that may still come to light, would represent the execution of a very specific campaign strategy to provide substantial assistance to the Putin regime’s program of intervention in an American presidential election.

Campaign Finance Law: When “Collusion” Becomes a Crime: Part II

and here is part1 of the article

Campaign Finance Law: When “Collusion” with a Foreign Government Becomes a Crime

 

[Dschrute3]

No one 'Colluded' with Russia on 'Hacking' our Election. It is a witch hunt. Were some connected with his Campaign in communication with Russia? Probably. But that's not uncommon. It certainly isn't an 'Impeachable' offense. It's gonna cost Taxpayers several $Millions to find out what it is already known. It's just a shameful Democrat Coup d'etat attempt. Manufactured B.S.

Russia as known to be releasing stolen information at the time. Trump's campaign as shown to be trying to gather more stolen information to go with it. Sounds like collusion to me.

Really? You mean a Campaign tried to dig up dirt on its opponent? Wow, that certainly is something new and unprecedented. What are you 12 years old or something? Politics is a blood sport. Both sides will do just about anything to win. But Donald Trump did not 'Collude' with Russia to 'Hack' our Election. That's absolute Democrat Bullshit.

Gathering opposition information isn't a crime. Working with a foreign enemy of the US who is involved in espionage to gather that opposition information is.

Uh huh, it's a 'crime' because you lost. Go figure? Hopefully your witch hunt will backfire on y'all. That would be real justice.

IT'S A CRIME, because it breaks the Law.

More on When Collusion with a Foreign Government Becomes a Crime
June 7, 2017
posted by Bob Bauer
This is a follow-up to a first posting on this issue, now up on Just Security.

The text is also reproduced below:

————-

As a potential crime under the campaign finance laws, the Trump campaign collusion with the Russians is well documented. As I contended in a recent essay, there is ample evidence in plain sight. The President applauded a foreign government for its interference in the election and suggested that he would be happy to see more of the same. Asked to disavow it, he declined to do so. Both the candidate and his campaign made extensive use of the material the Russians supplied via WikiLeaks on the campaign trail and in the presidential debates. The Russians had a willing partner in their design to influence the election and a clear signal that their intervention had value. There is more than enough in the public record to warrant inquiry into the Trump campaign’s “substantial assistance” to a foreign government in violation of the campaign finance laws.

Some analysts believe that this is evidence is insufficient. They insist that more is needed in the form of direct communication between the campaign and the foreign government. But they are mistakenly discounting the significance of the evidence in plain sight, and looking in the wrong direction for more proof, if in fact more is needed.


Weighing the Evidence in Plain Sight

It is important to acknowledge there is some skepticism whether any public appeal for support from a foreign power can support a violation of the campaign laws. The skeptic might assume that Trump or his associates could say whatever they said out in the open for anyone–the Russians included–to interpret and act upon as they wished. On this view, for the law to be broken, the understanding between the American campaign and Russian government would have to share some of the elements of a more explicit agreement forged through private channels of communication. After all, Trump might have meant his shout-out to the Russians half humorously. He might have intended to needle the Clinton campaign. And once this material appeared on WikiLeaks, it was fair game for political commentary and debate. The press after all was extensively covering the disclosures as well.

This line of analysis mistakenly assumes that provisions of campaign finance law that define “coordination” set forth the controlling body of rules here. Spending coordinated with a campaign is a contribution, and the coordination can be achieved in various ways–a direct request by the candidate, or the campaign and independent spenders’ use of conduits to arrive at an understanding. These coordination rules are invoked against candidates and groups purporting to make unlimited “independent expenditures” for their benefit. The claim of independence is defeated if the candidate is feeding information to the groups on this coordinated basis to facilitate and enhance the value of the expenditures.

The coordination standard would apply to any spending by foreign nationals that results from these forms of collaboration of a candidate with the spender. If, for example, the Russians placed paid advertising on an Internet platform on a suggestion, direct or indirect, from Trump campaign associates, then the coordination rules would require that the spending be treated as an illegal contribution to the Trump campaign.

But the coordination rules do not apply to communications between a campaign and an “independent” supporter if the strategically useful information that the supporter uses to shape expenditure is publicly available. The rules distinguish, for liability purposes, the public from the more private means through which an independent supporter may obtain the information. Say, for example, that a candidate posts to her website a statement that her campaign wishes to emphasize tax reform in the closing weeks of the campaign. A group that picks up on this suggestion and runs ads praising the candidate’s position on tax reform has not illegally coordinated with the candidate. It is free to use the candidate’s public statement of her needs, interests or strategies.

This exception is not applicable in the case of the separate set of rules in election law: the foreign national spending ban. Such an exception does not appear in the relevant regulation. What appears there instead, without any such escape hatch, is the prohibition on providing the foreign national with “substantial assistance” in contributing any “thing of value” to influence an election. The ban applies to both “direct” and “indirect” support from the foreign national for the benefit of the campaign.

The application of the foreign national rules to reach even the public sharing of information is consistent with its broad purposes as a national security measure. It is built to different specifications than the ordinary contribution limits in accommodating free speech concerns. It necessarily assigns these concerns less weight in cases presenting this high-order government interest–an interest which the court in Bluman v. FEC called “fundamental to the definition of our national political community.” A case brought under this provision may rest in part on open, indirect. “wink-and-nod” collusion in way that one involving only US nationals simply may not. And this application would have special force where it is the candidate or his campaign soliciting a foreign government’s support.

How this provision should be read to constrain the conduct of a candidate seeking foreign support is not just one more esoteric question emerging from the surprising and unconventional 2016 Trump campaign. The reality is that foreign government interventions are not unusual. As one commentator has noted, referring to a major study of this topic, many of the means governments employ to influence elections in other countries are not “as crude as bags of cash,” but include “training locals of the preferred side in campaign techniques, covertly disseminating damaging information or disinformation about the other side, or providing or withdrawing foreign aid to influence the vote.” In other words, these are “things of value,” and we can expect more of the same.

It seems odd, and in the end fatal to the utility of the law, to allow a candidate to openly court these things of value. The Trump campaign did just that. It also spared no effort in hailing the importance it assigned to what the Russians were doing to help it, or to harm the Clinton campaign, or both. This was done in full public view and the story it tells is fairly complete; and yet we may still learn more through the investigation now in progress.

Evidence Supporting a Finding of “Substantial Assistance”

It follows that the evidence in support of the “substantial assistance” would be different in quantity and nature from what is needed for a “coordination” claim. The evidence on the public record shows the Trump campaign encouraging the Russian activities and making active use of the hacked results. If there is a doubt that this is enough, the answer is not to return to the coordination rules, devised mostly for other cases: This only confuses the issue. Rather than only look “externally” for direct communications between campaign and foreign government, the investigation would focus its efforts more “internally,” on the campaign’s intent to build this de facto political alliance with Russia.

Some of the questions would be:

–What do the records of the campaign–and the sworn testimony of campaign aides–establish about the strategic importance to the campaign of these Russian activities?
–Did the campaign decide that it would not denounce the Russians, either on its own initiative or in response to press queries, because it did not wish to discourage them from continuing on their course?
–Was the message intended for Russia discussed during preparations for the presidential debate, which would explain Mr. Trump’s special care in refusing to assign direct blame for the hacking to the government or to reject any assistance from the hackers?
–What were the specific plans for active messaging around the hacked emails–in the press, in the preparation of surrogates for media appearances, and in the remarks prepared for or by the candidate for rallies and his own press interviews?

If there is evidence of this kind, it would match up with the known campaign and Trump handling of the Russia issue and answer any question of intent. The president’s open praise for the hacking, his stated “love” of Wikileaks, his refusal to condemn any state interference in the elections, could not be passed off as “Trump being Trump,” as the candidate just playing with the issue and relishing the coverage that came with it. Instead these actions, together with other evidence of intent that may still come to light, would represent the execution of a very specific campaign strategy to provide substantial assistance to the Putin regime’s program of intervention in an American presidential election.

Campaign Finance Law: When “Collusion” Becomes a Crime: Part II

and here is part1 of the article

Campaign Finance Law: When “Collusion” with a Foreign Government Becomes a Crime

Bullshite! Many Campaigns have had communications with foreign Governments. It's never been an issue. It's only suddenly become an issue because y'all ran the most corrupt Presidential Candidate in history, and lost. It is a disgraceful witch hunt. Y'all thought you had the Election in the bag, but you lost. That's what this is all about. And hopefully it will backfire on y'all bigtime. I hope Trump wins reelection in a Landslide.

 

[bripat9643]

No one 'Colluded' with Russia on 'Hacking' our Election. It is a witch hunt. Were some connected with his Campaign in communication with Russia? Probably. But that's not uncommon. It certainly isn't an 'Impeachable' offense. It's gonna cost Taxpayers several $Millions to find out what it is already known. It's just a shameful Democrat Coup d'etat attempt. Manufactured B.S.

Russia as known to be releasing stolen information at the time. Trump's campaign as shown to be trying to gather more stolen information to go with it. Sounds like collusion to me.

Really? You mean a Campaign tried to dig up dirt on its opponent? Wow, that certainly is something new and unprecedented. What are you 12 years old or something? Politics is a blood sport. Both sides will do just about anything to win. But Donald Trump did not 'Collude' with Russia to 'Hack' our Election. That's absolute Democrat Bullshit.

Gathering opposition information isn't a crime. Working with a foreign enemy of the US who is involved in espionage to gather that opposition information is.

Uh huh, it's a 'crime' because you lost. Go figure? Hopefully your witch hunt will backfire on y'all. That would be real justice.

IT'S A CRIME, because it breaks the Law.

How does it break the law?

 

[bripat9643]

No one 'Colluded' with Russia on 'Hacking' our Election. It is a witch hunt. Were some connected with his Campaign in communication with Russia? Probably. But that's not uncommon. It certainly isn't an 'Impeachable' offense. It's gonna cost Taxpayers several $Millions to find out what it is already known. It's just a shameful Democrat Coup d'etat attempt. Manufactured B.S.

Russia as known to be releasing stolen information at the time. Trump's campaign as shown to be trying to gather more stolen information to go with it. Sounds like collusion to me.

Really? You mean a Campaign tried to dig up dirt on its opponent? Wow, that certainly is something new and unprecedented. What are you 12 years old or something? Politics is a blood sport. Both sides will do just about anything to win. But Donald Trump did not 'Collude' with Russia to 'Hack' our Election. That's absolute Democrat Bullshit.

Gathering opposition information isn't a crime. Working with a foreign enemy of the US who is involved in espionage to gather that opposition information is.

Uh huh, it's a 'crime' because you lost. Go figure? Hopefully your witch hunt will backfire on y'all. That would be real justice.

IT'S A CRIME, because it breaks the Law.

More on When Collusion with a Foreign Government Becomes a Crime
June 7, 2017
posted by Bob Bauer
This is a follow-up to a first posting on this issue, now up on Just Security.

The text is also reproduced below:

————-

As a potential crime under the campaign finance laws, the Trump campaign collusion with the Russians is well documented. As I contended in a recent essay, there is ample evidence in plain sight. The President applauded a foreign government for its interference in the election and suggested that he would be happy to see more of the same. Asked to disavow it, he declined to do so. Both the candidate and his campaign made extensive use of the material the Russians supplied via WikiLeaks on the campaign trail and in the presidential debates. The Russians had a willing partner in their design to influence the election and a clear signal that their intervention had value. There is more than enough in the public record to warrant inquiry into the Trump campaign’s “substantial assistance” to a foreign government in violation of the campaign finance laws.

Some analysts believe that this is evidence is insufficient. They insist that more is needed in the form of direct communication between the campaign and the foreign government. But they are mistakenly discounting the significance of the evidence in plain sight, and looking in the wrong direction for more proof, if in fact more is needed.


Weighing the Evidence in Plain Sight

It is important to acknowledge there is some skepticism whether any public appeal for support from a foreign power can support a violation of the campaign laws. The skeptic might assume that Trump or his associates could say whatever they said out in the open for anyone–the Russians included–to interpret and act upon as they wished. On this view, for the law to be broken, the understanding between the American campaign and Russian government would have to share some of the elements of a more explicit agreement forged through private channels of communication. After all, Trump might have meant his shout-out to the Russians half humorously. He might have intended to needle the Clinton campaign. And once this material appeared on WikiLeaks, it was fair game for political commentary and debate. The press after all was extensively covering the disclosures as well.

This line of analysis mistakenly assumes that provisions of campaign finance law that define “coordination” set forth the controlling body of rules here. Spending coordinated with a campaign is a contribution, and the coordination can be achieved in various ways–a direct request by the candidate, or the campaign and independent spenders’ use of conduits to arrive at an understanding. These coordination rules are invoked against candidates and groups purporting to make unlimited “independent expenditures” for their benefit. The claim of independence is defeated if the candidate is feeding information to the groups on this coordinated basis to facilitate and enhance the value of the expenditures.

The coordination standard would apply to any spending by foreign nationals that results from these forms of collaboration of a candidate with the spender. If, for example, the Russians placed paid advertising on an Internet platform on a suggestion, direct or indirect, from Trump campaign associates, then the coordination rules would require that the spending be treated as an illegal contribution to the Trump campaign.

But the coordination rules do not apply to communications between a campaign and an “independent” supporter if the strategically useful information that the supporter uses to shape expenditure is publicly available. The rules distinguish, for liability purposes, the public from the more private means through which an independent supporter may obtain the information. Say, for example, that a candidate posts to her website a statement that her campaign wishes to emphasize tax reform in the closing weeks of the campaign. A group that picks up on this suggestion and runs ads praising the candidate’s position on tax reform has not illegally coordinated with the candidate. It is free to use the candidate’s public statement of her needs, interests or strategies.

This exception is not applicable in the case of the separate set of rules in election law: the foreign national spending ban. Such an exception does not appear in the relevant regulation. What appears there instead, without any such escape hatch, is the prohibition on providing the foreign national with “substantial assistance” in contributing any “thing of value” to influence an election. The ban applies to both “direct” and “indirect” support from the foreign national for the benefit of the campaign.

The application of the foreign national rules to reach even the public sharing of information is consistent with its broad purposes as a national security measure. It is built to different specifications than the ordinary contribution limits in accommodating free speech concerns. It necessarily assigns these concerns less weight in cases presenting this high-order government interest–an interest which the court in Bluman v. FEC called “fundamental to the definition of our national political community.” A case brought under this provision may rest in part on open, indirect. “wink-and-nod” collusion in way that one involving only US nationals simply may not. And this application would have special force where it is the candidate or his campaign soliciting a foreign government’s support.

How this provision should be read to constrain the conduct of a candidate seeking foreign support is not just one more esoteric question emerging from the surprising and unconventional 2016 Trump campaign. The reality is that foreign government interventions are not unusual. As one commentator has noted, referring to a major study of this topic, many of the means governments employ to influence elections in other countries are not “as crude as bags of cash,” but include “training locals of the preferred side in campaign techniques, covertly disseminating damaging information or disinformation about the other side, or providing or withdrawing foreign aid to influence the vote.” In other words, these are “things of value,” and we can expect more of the same.

It seems odd, and in the end fatal to the utility of the law, to allow a candidate to openly court these things of value. The Trump campaign did just that. It also spared no effort in hailing the importance it assigned to what the Russians were doing to help it, or to harm the Clinton campaign, or both. This was done in full public view and the story it tells is fairly complete; and yet we may still learn more through the investigation now in progress.

Evidence Supporting a Finding of “Substantial Assistance”

It follows that the evidence in support of the “substantial assistance” would be different in quantity and nature from what is needed for a “coordination” claim. The evidence on the public record shows the Trump campaign encouraging the Russian activities and making active use of the hacked results. If there is a doubt that this is enough, the answer is not to return to the coordination rules, devised mostly for other cases: This only confuses the issue. Rather than only look “externally” for direct communications between campaign and foreign government, the investigation would focus its efforts more “internally,” on the campaign’s intent to build this de facto political alliance with Russia.

Some of the questions would be:

–What do the records of the campaign–and the sworn testimony of campaign aides–establish about the strategic importance to the campaign of these Russian activities?
–Did the campaign decide that it would not denounce the Russians, either on its own initiative or in response to press queries, because it did not wish to discourage them from continuing on their course?
–Was the message intended for Russia discussed during preparations for the presidential debate, which would explain Mr. Trump’s special care in refusing to assign direct blame for the hacking to the government or to reject any assistance from the hackers?
–What were the specific plans for active messaging around the hacked emails–in the press, in the preparation of surrogates for media appearances, and in the remarks prepared for or by the candidate for rallies and his own press interviews?

If there is evidence of this kind, it would match up with the known campaign and Trump handling of the Russia issue and answer any question of intent. The president’s open praise for the hacking, his stated “love” of Wikileaks, his refusal to condemn any state interference in the elections, could not be passed off as “Trump being Trump,” as the candidate just playing with the issue and relishing the coverage that came with it. Instead these actions, together with other evidence of intent that may still come to light, would represent the execution of a very specific campaign strategy to provide substantial assistance to the Putin regime’s program of intervention in an American presidential election.

Campaign Finance Law: When “Collusion” Becomes a Crime: Part II

and here is part1 of the article

Campaign Finance Law: When “Collusion” with a Foreign Government Becomes a Crime

That is so weak.

 

[easyt65]

No criminal activity.
No crime.
No collusion.
No obstruction.
No evidence.
And Mueller is still hiring his Hate Squad....

Nice.


Are they ever going to actually investigate anything, or is Mueller just putting together a team to draft the indictment and Articles of Impeachment without ever having investigated?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

He's hired attorneys who specialize in several related areas, including one who is fluent in Russian. That info isn't available on the sites trumpkins frequent so they would have no way of knowing that.

I would think all you trumpkins would be very happy that the cheeto will, you know, have his day in court, so he can be cleared.

Right?




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I get it... maybe bring in investigators from Mars that don't know who any of the people are and can use fair judgment? I'm sure Alex Jones knows where there are some Martians to do this.

Well yabut, they're all under age ...
[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Care4all]

Russia as known to be releasing stolen information at the time. Trump's campaign as shown to be trying to gather more stolen information to go with it. Sounds like collusion to me.

Really? You mean a Campaign tried to dig up dirt on its opponent? Wow, that certainly is something new and unprecedented. What are you 12 years old or something? Politics is a blood sport. Both sides will do just about anything to win. But Donald Trump did not 'Collude' with Russia to 'Hack' our Election. That's absolute Democrat Bullshit.

Gathering opposition information isn't a crime. Working with a foreign enemy of the US who is involved in espionage to gather that opposition information is.

Uh huh, it's a 'crime' because you lost. Go figure? Hopefully your witch hunt will backfire on y'all. That would be real justice.

IT'S A CRIME, because it breaks the Law.

More on When Collusion with a Foreign Government Becomes a Crime
June 7, 2017
posted by Bob Bauer
This is a follow-up to a first posting on this issue, now up on Just Security.

The text is also reproduced below:

————-

As a potential crime under the campaign finance laws, the Trump campaign collusion with the Russians is well documented. As I contended in a recent essay, there is ample evidence in plain sight. The President applauded a foreign government for its interference in the election and suggested that he would be happy to see more of the same. Asked to disavow it, he declined to do so. Both the candidate and his campaign made extensive use of the material the Russians supplied via WikiLeaks on the campaign trail and in the presidential debates. The Russians had a willing partner in their design to influence the election and a clear signal that their intervention had value. There is more than enough in the public record to warrant inquiry into the Trump campaign’s “substantial assistance” to a foreign government in violation of the campaign finance laws.

Some analysts believe that this is evidence is insufficient. They insist that more is needed in the form of direct communication between the campaign and the foreign government. But they are mistakenly discounting the significance of the evidence in plain sight, and looking in the wrong direction for more proof, if in fact more is needed.


Weighing the Evidence in Plain Sight

It is important to acknowledge there is some skepticism whether any public appeal for support from a foreign power can support a violation of the campaign laws. The skeptic might assume that Trump or his associates could say whatever they said out in the open for anyone–the Russians included–to interpret and act upon as they wished. On this view, for the law to be broken, the understanding between the American campaign and Russian government would have to share some of the elements of a more explicit agreement forged through private channels of communication. After all, Trump might have meant his shout-out to the Russians half humorously. He might have intended to needle the Clinton campaign. And once this material appeared on WikiLeaks, it was fair game for political commentary and debate. The press after all was extensively covering the disclosures as well.

This line of analysis mistakenly assumes that provisions of campaign finance law that define “coordination” set forth the controlling body of rules here. Spending coordinated with a campaign is a contribution, and the coordination can be achieved in various ways–a direct request by the candidate, or the campaign and independent spenders’ use of conduits to arrive at an understanding. These coordination rules are invoked against candidates and groups purporting to make unlimited “independent expenditures” for their benefit. The claim of independence is defeated if the candidate is feeding information to the groups on this coordinated basis to facilitate and enhance the value of the expenditures.

The coordination standard would apply to any spending by foreign nationals that results from these forms of collaboration of a candidate with the spender. If, for example, the Russians placed paid advertising on an Internet platform on a suggestion, direct or indirect, from Trump campaign associates, then the coordination rules would require that the spending be treated as an illegal contribution to the Trump campaign.

But the coordination rules do not apply to communications between a campaign and an “independent” supporter if the strategically useful information that the supporter uses to shape expenditure is publicly available. The rules distinguish, for liability purposes, the public from the more private means through which an independent supporter may obtain the information. Say, for example, that a candidate posts to her website a statement that her campaign wishes to emphasize tax reform in the closing weeks of the campaign. A group that picks up on this suggestion and runs ads praising the candidate’s position on tax reform has not illegally coordinated with the candidate. It is free to use the candidate’s public statement of her needs, interests or strategies.

This exception is not applicable in the case of the separate set of rules in election law: the foreign national spending ban. Such an exception does not appear in the relevant regulation. What appears there instead, without any such escape hatch, is the prohibition on providing the foreign national with “substantial assistance” in contributing any “thing of value” to influence an election. The ban applies to both “direct” and “indirect” support from the foreign national for the benefit of the campaign.

The application of the foreign national rules to reach even the public sharing of information is consistent with its broad purposes as a national security measure. It is built to different specifications than the ordinary contribution limits in accommodating free speech concerns. It necessarily assigns these concerns less weight in cases presenting this high-order government interest–an interest which the court in Bluman v. FEC called “fundamental to the definition of our national political community.” A case brought under this provision may rest in part on open, indirect. “wink-and-nod” collusion in way that one involving only US nationals simply may not. And this application would have special force where it is the candidate or his campaign soliciting a foreign government’s support.

How this provision should be read to constrain the conduct of a candidate seeking foreign support is not just one more esoteric question emerging from the surprising and unconventional 2016 Trump campaign. The reality is that foreign government interventions are not unusual. As one commentator has noted, referring to a major study of this topic, many of the means governments employ to influence elections in other countries are not “as crude as bags of cash,” but include “training locals of the preferred side in campaign techniques, covertly disseminating damaging information or disinformation about the other side, or providing or withdrawing foreign aid to influence the vote.” In other words, these are “things of value,” and we can expect more of the same.

It seems odd, and in the end fatal to the utility of the law, to allow a candidate to openly court these things of value. The Trump campaign did just that. It also spared no effort in hailing the importance it assigned to what the Russians were doing to help it, or to harm the Clinton campaign, or both. This was done in full public view and the story it tells is fairly complete; and yet we may still learn more through the investigation now in progress.

Evidence Supporting a Finding of “Substantial Assistance”

It follows that the evidence in support of the “substantial assistance” would be different in quantity and nature from what is needed for a “coordination” claim. The evidence on the public record shows the Trump campaign encouraging the Russian activities and making active use of the hacked results. If there is a doubt that this is enough, the answer is not to return to the coordination rules, devised mostly for other cases: This only confuses the issue. Rather than only look “externally” for direct communications between campaign and foreign government, the investigation would focus its efforts more “internally,” on the campaign’s intent to build this de facto political alliance with Russia.

Some of the questions would be:

–What do the records of the campaign–and the sworn testimony of campaign aides–establish about the strategic importance to the campaign of these Russian activities?
–Did the campaign decide that it would not denounce the Russians, either on its own initiative or in response to press queries, because it did not wish to discourage them from continuing on their course?
–Was the message intended for Russia discussed during preparations for the presidential debate, which would explain Mr. Trump’s special care in refusing to assign direct blame for the hacking to the government or to reject any assistance from the hackers?
–What were the specific plans for active messaging around the hacked emails–in the press, in the preparation of surrogates for media appearances, and in the remarks prepared for or by the candidate for rallies and his own press interviews?

If there is evidence of this kind, it would match up with the known campaign and Trump handling of the Russia issue and answer any question of intent. The president’s open praise for the hacking, his stated “love” of Wikileaks, his refusal to condemn any state interference in the elections, could not be passed off as “Trump being Trump,” as the candidate just playing with the issue and relishing the coverage that came with it. Instead these actions, together with other evidence of intent that may still come to light, would represent the execution of a very specific campaign strategy to provide substantial assistance to the Putin regime’s program of intervention in an American presidential election.

Campaign Finance Law: When “Collusion” Becomes a Crime: Part II

and here is part1 of the article

Campaign Finance Law: When “Collusion” with a Foreign Government Becomes a Crime

Bullshite! Many Campaigns have had communications with foreign Governments. It's never been an issue. It's only suddenly become an issue because y'all ran the most corrupt Presidential Candidate in history, and lost. It is a disgraceful witch hunt. Y'all thought you had the Election in the bag, but you lost. That's what this is all about. And hopefully it will backfire on y'all bigtime. I hope Trump wins reelection in a Landslide.

Communications is one thing, coordinating with a benefit, a quid pro quo, is against the law....AS IT SHOULD BE!

So I guess we will see....once they finish their investigations...

 

[easyt65]

He's hired attorneys who specialize in several related areas, including one who is fluent in Russian. That info isn't available on the sites trumpkins frequent so they would have no way of knowing that.

I would think all you trumpkins would be very happy that the cheeto will, you know, have his day in court, so he can be cleared.

Right?




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

The Lawyer fluent in Russian has to be Hillary's lawyer who worked for the Clinton Foundatoon, probably the one who handled taking the donations from the Russian involved in buying US Uranium with the help of Hillary's influence...

 

[easyt65]

I would think all you trumpkins would be very happy that the cheeto will, you know, have his day in court, so he can be cleared.Right?

'Have his fau in court'? Ummm, snowflake ... are you trying to claim Trump has been indicted, charged with a crime?

Take your medication, and stop spreading the Fake News.

 

[Dschrute3]

Really? You mean a Campaign tried to dig up dirt on its opponent? Wow, that certainly is something new and unprecedented. What are you 12 years old or something? Politics is a blood sport. Both sides will do just about anything to win. But Donald Trump did not 'Collude' with Russia to 'Hack' our Election. That's absolute Democrat Bullshit.

Gathering opposition information isn't a crime. Working with a foreign enemy of the US who is involved in espionage to gather that opposition information is.

Uh huh, it's a 'crime' because you lost. Go figure? Hopefully your witch hunt will backfire on y'all. That would be real justice.

IT'S A CRIME, because it breaks the Law.

More on When Collusion with a Foreign Government Becomes a Crime
June 7, 2017
posted by Bob Bauer
This is a follow-up to a first posting on this issue, now up on Just Security.

The text is also reproduced below:

————-

As a potential crime under the campaign finance laws, the Trump campaign collusion with the Russians is well documented. As I contended in a recent essay, there is ample evidence in plain sight. The President applauded a foreign government for its interference in the election and suggested that he would be happy to see more of the same. Asked to disavow it, he declined to do so. Both the candidate and his campaign made extensive use of the material the Russians supplied via WikiLeaks on the campaign trail and in the presidential debates. The Russians had a willing partner in their design to influence the election and a clear signal that their intervention had value. There is more than enough in the public record to warrant inquiry into the Trump campaign’s “substantial assistance” to a foreign government in violation of the campaign finance laws.

Some analysts believe that this is evidence is insufficient. They insist that more is needed in the form of direct communication between the campaign and the foreign government. But they are mistakenly discounting the significance of the evidence in plain sight, and looking in the wrong direction for more proof, if in fact more is needed.


Weighing the Evidence in Plain Sight

It is important to acknowledge there is some skepticism whether any public appeal for support from a foreign power can support a violation of the campaign laws. The skeptic might assume that Trump or his associates could say whatever they said out in the open for anyone–the Russians included–to interpret and act upon as they wished. On this view, for the law to be broken, the understanding between the American campaign and Russian government would have to share some of the elements of a more explicit agreement forged through private channels of communication. After all, Trump might have meant his shout-out to the Russians half humorously. He might have intended to needle the Clinton campaign. And once this material appeared on WikiLeaks, it was fair game for political commentary and debate. The press after all was extensively covering the disclosures as well.

This line of analysis mistakenly assumes that provisions of campaign finance law that define “coordination” set forth the controlling body of rules here. Spending coordinated with a campaign is a contribution, and the coordination can be achieved in various ways–a direct request by the candidate, or the campaign and independent spenders’ use of conduits to arrive at an understanding. These coordination rules are invoked against candidates and groups purporting to make unlimited “independent expenditures” for their benefit. The claim of independence is defeated if the candidate is feeding information to the groups on this coordinated basis to facilitate and enhance the value of the expenditures.

The coordination standard would apply to any spending by foreign nationals that results from these forms of collaboration of a candidate with the spender. If, for example, the Russians placed paid advertising on an Internet platform on a suggestion, direct or indirect, from Trump campaign associates, then the coordination rules would require that the spending be treated as an illegal contribution to the Trump campaign.

But the coordination rules do not apply to communications between a campaign and an “independent” supporter if the strategically useful information that the supporter uses to shape expenditure is publicly available. The rules distinguish, for liability purposes, the public from the more private means through which an independent supporter may obtain the information. Say, for example, that a candidate posts to her website a statement that her campaign wishes to emphasize tax reform in the closing weeks of the campaign. A group that picks up on this suggestion and runs ads praising the candidate’s position on tax reform has not illegally coordinated with the candidate. It is free to use the candidate’s public statement of her needs, interests or strategies.

This exception is not applicable in the case of the separate set of rules in election law: the foreign national spending ban. Such an exception does not appear in the relevant regulation. What appears there instead, without any such escape hatch, is the prohibition on providing the foreign national with “substantial assistance” in contributing any “thing of value” to influence an election. The ban applies to both “direct” and “indirect” support from the foreign national for the benefit of the campaign.

The application of the foreign national rules to reach even the public sharing of information is consistent with its broad purposes as a national security measure. It is built to different specifications than the ordinary contribution limits in accommodating free speech concerns. It necessarily assigns these concerns less weight in cases presenting this high-order government interest–an interest which the court in Bluman v. FEC called “fundamental to the definition of our national political community.” A case brought under this provision may rest in part on open, indirect. “wink-and-nod” collusion in way that one involving only US nationals simply may not. And this application would have special force where it is the candidate or his campaign soliciting a foreign government’s support.

How this provision should be read to constrain the conduct of a candidate seeking foreign support is not just one more esoteric question emerging from the surprising and unconventional 2016 Trump campaign. The reality is that foreign government interventions are not unusual. As one commentator has noted, referring to a major study of this topic, many of the means governments employ to influence elections in other countries are not “as crude as bags of cash,” but include “training locals of the preferred side in campaign techniques, covertly disseminating damaging information or disinformation about the other side, or providing or withdrawing foreign aid to influence the vote.” In other words, these are “things of value,” and we can expect more of the same.

It seems odd, and in the end fatal to the utility of the law, to allow a candidate to openly court these things of value. The Trump campaign did just that. It also spared no effort in hailing the importance it assigned to what the Russians were doing to help it, or to harm the Clinton campaign, or both. This was done in full public view and the story it tells is fairly complete; and yet we may still learn more through the investigation now in progress.

Evidence Supporting a Finding of “Substantial Assistance”

It follows that the evidence in support of the “substantial assistance” would be different in quantity and nature from what is needed for a “coordination” claim. The evidence on the public record shows the Trump campaign encouraging the Russian activities and making active use of the hacked results. If there is a doubt that this is enough, the answer is not to return to the coordination rules, devised mostly for other cases: This only confuses the issue. Rather than only look “externally” for direct communications between campaign and foreign government, the investigation would focus its efforts more “internally,” on the campaign’s intent to build this de facto political alliance with Russia.

Some of the questions would be:

–What do the records of the campaign–and the sworn testimony of campaign aides–establish about the strategic importance to the campaign of these Russian activities?
–Did the campaign decide that it would not denounce the Russians, either on its own initiative or in response to press queries, because it did not wish to discourage them from continuing on their course?
–Was the message intended for Russia discussed during preparations for the presidential debate, which would explain Mr. Trump’s special care in refusing to assign direct blame for the hacking to the government or to reject any assistance from the hackers?
–What were the specific plans for active messaging around the hacked emails–in the press, in the preparation of surrogates for media appearances, and in the remarks prepared for or by the candidate for rallies and his own press interviews?

If there is evidence of this kind, it would match up with the known campaign and Trump handling of the Russia issue and answer any question of intent. The president’s open praise for the hacking, his stated “love” of Wikileaks, his refusal to condemn any state interference in the elections, could not be passed off as “Trump being Trump,” as the candidate just playing with the issue and relishing the coverage that came with it. Instead these actions, together with other evidence of intent that may still come to light, would represent the execution of a very specific campaign strategy to provide substantial assistance to the Putin regime’s program of intervention in an American presidential election.

Campaign Finance Law: When “Collusion” Becomes a Crime: Part II

and here is part1 of the article

Campaign Finance Law: When “Collusion” with a Foreign Government Becomes a Crime

Bullshite! Many Campaigns have had communications with foreign Governments. It's never been an issue. It's only suddenly become an issue because y'all ran the most corrupt Presidential Candidate in history, and lost. It is a disgraceful witch hunt. Y'all thought you had the Election in the bag, but you lost. That's what this is all about. And hopefully it will backfire on y'all bigtime. I hope Trump wins reelection in a Landslide.

Communications is one thing, coordinating with a benefit, a quid pro quo, is against the law....AS IT SHOULD BE!

So I guess we will see....once they finish their investigations...

Wishful thinking lies. You must work for CNN or NBC. I truly hope this all backfires on y'all bigtime.

 

[kyzr]

"Communications is one thing, coordinating with a benefit, a quid pro quo, is against the law....AS IT SHOULD BE!"

What Law? Please be specific. (Hint: there isn't one on the books currently)

 

[Care4all]

He's hired attorneys who specialize in several related areas, including one who is fluent in Russian. That info isn't available on the sites trumpkins frequent so they would have no way of knowing that.

I would think all you trumpkins would be very happy that the cheeto will, you know, have his day in court, so he can be cleared.

Right?




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

The Lawyer fluent in Russian has to be Hillary's lawyer who worked for the Clinton Foundatoon, probably the one who handled taking the donations from the Russian involved in buying US Uranium with the help of Hillary's influence...

bull crappy stuff, as usual!

When the foundation was taking donations, no one knew Hillary would be Secretary of State and be one of the 9 agencies having to approve the deal!

 

[Care4all]

"Communications is one thing, coordinating with a benefit, a quid pro quo, is against the law....AS IT SHOULD BE!"

What Law? Please be specific. (Hint: there isn't one on the books currently)

It's election law, read the links in this post...#66

Mueller hires ANOTHER Trump Hating prosecutor

 

[Care4all]

No criminal activity.
No crime.
No collusion.
No obstruction.
No evidence.
And Mueller is still hiring his Hate Squad....

Nice.


Are they ever going to actually investigate anything, or is Mueller just putting together a team to draft the indictment and Articles of Impeachment without ever having investigated?

Aren't these lawyers/prosecutors being hired... in charge of specific criminal areas of the on going investigation that may involve US Citizens?

I think they review what the investigators are finding, to see if anything is worthy of prosecution or not worthy of it.