The rational relevance of who funds "whatever"

[usmbguest5318]

Preface -- Statement of thread theme, topic and purpose:

This OP and thread is not about any specific individual. It is about:

• The rationality or irrationality of making "something" out of what has not been established.
• Individuals' and organization's predilection for discarding reason and equitability, and as a result of having done so, committing one or more critical thinking, logical, missteps and flaws (fallacies).

Discussion Rubric:
I am weary of all the haranguing about who funded "this" and who funded "that." Quite simply who paid for "whatever" is relevant only after it has been established that what they paid for is legal.

Who funds anything is only circumstantial, not probative, as to whether the thing they funded was illegal. It really doesn't matter, in terms of electioneering and so long as the funder is an American citizen, who funded "X." What is illegal is a foreigner (foreign organization) undertaking their own initiative(s) to insinuate themselves into U.S. election activities.

Election campaigns can purchase information and services from whomever they want. In such a transaction, the campaign, not the entity/person from whom the goods/services, is the principal and the other party is the supplier. Notice the flow of funds in such a transaction. It is from the campaign to the supplier, not the other way round, which, if the "other party" is a foreigner, is prohibited.

Can one use the fact of who funded what to direct one to look "here" or "there" for additional information? Yes, that's not unreasonable, but looking in any such places is likely to be a waste of resources if there isn't more that just the circumstantial guidance deriving from the fact that someone purchased XYZ from someone else.

So where does one draw the line on what can and cannot be procured from a foreign party? The answer is that it is illegal to pay foreign entity/person (or any other, for that matter) to perform, on one's behalf an illegal act. Thus, legally, that is where the line is drawn, and that is not a matter of opinion. Engaging someone else to do something illegal on one's behalf is the very definition of conspiring to commit "X," where "X" is an illegal act.


Note:

• (See Black's Law Dictionary to obtain a precise understanding of how conspiracy differs from collusion. The differences are very nuanced, but they are nonetheless differences, and the differences are what make one criminal and the other not. Conspiring to break a law is illegal. Colluding to do anything is not illegal. Indeed, collusion can be, but is not always, a part of conspiring; conspiring, legally, is not part of collusion.)

 

[MACAULAY]

For all of us Heartland Rubes....who cannot understand compound sentences, inductive and deductive reasoning, logic, bolshevik horse shit....here is an Interpretation of the O. P.:

I don't know. It is so Fucked Up that neither I know, nor does the poster know---what in the hell he/she is talking about. The only thing anybody can be sure of, is the the poster is a numb-skull who has gotten ahold of Black's Law Dictionary, and has become confused by it.

A guess, based mainly on the past posts of this known Dumb-Ass Bolshevik O. P., is that it is some kind of attempt to explain why Hillary Clinton, John Podesta, that awful haint Wasserman-Shultz, and many other Democrats...should not be headed for the Hoosegow.

But, I could wrong. Maybe the Poster will clarify himself.

I call Bullshit in advance.

 

[usmbguest5318]

For all of us Heartland Rubes....who cannot understand compound sentences, inductive and deductive reasoning, logic, bolshevik horse shit....here is an Interpretation of the O. P.:

I don't know. It is so Fucked Up that neither I know, nor does the poster know---what in the hell he/she is talking about. The only thing anybody can be sure of, is the the poster is a numb-skull who has gotten ahold of Black's Law Dictionary, and has become confused by it.

A guess, based mainly on the past posts of this known Dumb-Ass Bolshevik O. P., is that it is some kind of attempt to explain why Hillary Clinton, John Podesta, that awful haint Wasserman-Shultz, and many other Democrats...should not be headed for the Hoosegow.

But, I could wrong. Maybe the Poster will clarify himself.

I call Bullshit in advance.

A guess, based mainly on the past posts of this known Dumb-Ass Bolshevik O. P., is that it is some kind of attempt to explain why Hillary Clinton, John Podesta, that awful haint Wasserman-Shultz, and many other Democrats...should not be headed for the Hoosegow.

Insofar as you are but guessing, dumb-ass, it's clear that you are unable to discern the meaning of the sentences in the first paragraph of the OP.

This OP and thread is not about any specific individual. It is about:

• The rationality or irrationality of making "something" out of what has not been established.
• Individuals' and organization's predilection for discarding reason and equitability, and as a result of having done so, committing one or more critical thinking, logical, missteps and flaws (fallacies).

 

[BETH-MIDAN]

What's your point before how what you say affects no person in the united states is eventually shown to you over the course of the thread you've started ?

You do realize the same dossier attempts to provide that Donald trump has an actual vacation sex circuit across prostitution hotels in eastern Europe ?

I fail to see how what you say validates the dossier to begin with.

But you've already conceded that so post binary instead of ascii next time.

Its the same as the close parenthesis one

 

[BETH-MIDAN]

There's already amnesia concerning the payment of 9 million dollars for said 'oppo research' so time isn't on your arguments side.

Nobody recalls paying for it for the obvious reason.

 

[FA_Q2]

False.

Who funds something can, indeed, be an intrinsic part of what makes something illegal, immoral or simply wrong.

A simple example is located by expanding something that you mentioned in your own OP. It is illegal for a foreign entity to purchase air time for certain political ad's that would be completely legal for a citizen to purchase.

On that same token, a study funded by Anheuser-Busch on the effects of alcohol does not carry the same weight that one funded by a an entity that does not have a steak in the outcome no matter what the study claims.

The short of it is that where something comes from (and that is what funding is - the source) matters a great deal in the value of something.

 

[usmbguest5318]

False.

Who funds something can, indeed, be an intrinsic part of what makes something illegal, immoral or simply wrong.

A simple example is located by expanding something that you mentioned in your own OP. It is illegal for a foreign entity to purchase air time for certain political ad's that would be completely legal for a citizen to purchase.

On that same token, a study funded by Anheuser-Busch on the effects of alcohol does not carry the same weight that one funded by a an entity that does not have a steak in the outcome no matter what the study claims.

The short of it is that where something comes from (and that is what funding is - the source) matters a great deal in the value of something.

Who funds something can, indeed, be an intrinsic part of what makes something illegal, immoral or simply wrong.

"Asked and answered," as it were.

Quite simply who paid for "whatever" is relevant only after it has been established that what they paid for is legal.

The short of it is that where something comes from (and that is what funding is - the source) matters a great deal in the value of something.

In the example you provide just above, who funds or performed the study says absolutely nothing about the rigor and soundness (or lack thereof) of the methodology used and disclosed as part of the study nor about the conclusions and inferences drawn based on that methodology. Consequently, though a non-neutral producer of a study may deliver a biased or materially flawed study, the basis for assailing the study and its findings is not that the given party conducted it, but rather (1) the material flaws in the methodology, which a critic must explicitly cite and show the nature and extent of inaptness with regard to the study's intents and conclusions, and/or (2) that the specific inferences and/or conclusions the researcher(s) draw are not apt given the methodology used in the study.

Quite simply, one who "shoots the messenger," if you will, achieves nothing other than establishing that they either find the message or messenger distasteful, but it says nothing credible about the message itself. (Shooting the messenger is merely a form of fallacious ad hominem lines of argument/assertion.)

 

[Peach]

Preface -- Statement of thread theme, topic and purpose:

This OP and thread is not about any specific individual. It is about:

• The rationality or irrationality of making "something" out of what has not been established.
• Individuals' and organization's predilection for discarding reason and equitability, and as a result of having done so, committing one or more critical thinking, logical, missteps and flaws (fallacies).

Discussion Rubric:
I am weary of all the haranguing about who funded "this" and who funded "that." Quite simply who paid for "whatever" is relevant only after it has been established that what they paid for is legal.

Who funds anything is only circumstantial, not probative, as to whether the thing they funded was illegal. It really doesn't matter, in terms of electioneering and so long as the funder is an American citizen, who funded "X." What is illegal is a foreigner (foreign organization) undertaking their own initiative(s) to insinuate themselves into U.S. election activities.

Election campaigns can purchase information and services from whomever they want. In such a transaction, the campaign, not the entity/person from whom the goods/services, is the principal and the other party is the supplier. Notice the flow of funds in such a transaction. It is from the campaign to the supplier, not the other way round, which, if the "other party" is a foreigner, is prohibited.

Can one use the fact of who funded what to direct one to look "here" or "there" for additional information? Yes, that's not unreasonable, but looking in any such places is likely to be a waste of resources if there isn't more that just the circumstantial guidance deriving from the fact that someone purchased XYZ from someone else.

So where does one draw the line on what can and cannot be procured from a foreign party? The answer is that it is illegal to pay foreign entity/person (or any other, for that matter) to perform, on one's behalf an illegal act. Thus, legally, that is where the line is drawn, and that is not a matter of opinion. Engaging someone else to do something illegal on one's behalf is the very definition of conspiring to commit "X," where "X" is an illegal act.


Note:

• (See Black's Law Dictionary to obtain a precise understanding of how conspiracy differs from collusion. The differences are very nuanced, but they are nonetheless differences, and the differences are what make one criminal and the other not. Conspiring to break a law is illegal. Colluding to do anything is not illegal. Indeed, collusion can be, but is not always, a part of conspiring; conspiring, legally, is not part of collusion.)

Black's Law is just a dictionary. Do not depend on that alone; 'collusion' is used in some jurisdictions to reference illegal acts:

Paul Rosenzweig is former deputy assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security and founder of Red Branch Consulting.

Collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law), so we should all just stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality. But that doesn’t mean that the alleged cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia is of no criminal interest. To the contrary, if true, it may have violated any number of criminal prohibitions.

For example, if Donald Trump Jr. sought “dirt” on Hillary Clinton from the Russians, he might be charged with conspiring to violate the election laws of the United States, which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value” to an electoral campaign. The opposition dirt is at least plausibly a thing of value. And to the extent that the Trump campaign aided, abetted or advised the Russians (or any other hackers) about what would be most useful to steal from the Democrats or how best to enhance the impact of their release, they may well have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Preface -- Statement of thread theme, topic and purpose:

This OP and thread is not about any specific individual. It is about:

• The rationality or irrationality of making "something" out of what has not been established.
• Individuals' and organization's predilection for discarding reason and equitability, and as a result of having done so, committing one or more critical thinking, logical, missteps and flaws (fallacies).

Discussion Rubric:
I am weary of all the haranguing about who funded "this" and who funded "that." Quite simply who paid for "whatever" is relevant only after it has been established that what they paid for is legal.

Who funds anything is only circumstantial, not probative, as to whether the thing they funded was illegal. It really doesn't matter, in terms of electioneering and so long as the funder is an American citizen, who funded "X." What is illegal is a foreigner (foreign organization) undertaking their own initiative(s) to insinuate themselves into U.S. election activities.

Election campaigns can purchase information and services from whomever they want. In such a transaction, the campaign, not the entity/person from whom the goods/services, is the principal and the other party is the supplier. Notice the flow of funds in such a transaction. It is from the campaign to the supplier, not the other way round, which, if the "other party" is a foreigner, is prohibited.

Can one use the fact of who funded what to direct one to look "here" or "there" for additional information? Yes, that's not unreasonable, but looking in any such places is likely to be a waste of resources if there isn't more that just the circumstantial guidance deriving from the fact that someone purchased XYZ from someone else.

So where does one draw the line on what can and cannot be procured from a foreign party? The answer is that it is illegal to pay foreign entity/person (or any other, for that matter) to perform, on one's behalf an illegal act. Thus, legally, that is where the line is drawn, and that is not a matter of opinion. Engaging someone else to do something illegal on one's behalf is the very definition of conspiring to commit "X," where "X" is an illegal act.


Note:

• (See Black's Law Dictionary to obtain a precise understanding of how conspiracy differs from collusion. The differences are very nuanced, but they are nonetheless differences, and the differences are what make one criminal and the other not. Conspiring to break a law is illegal. Colluding to do anything is not illegal. Indeed, collusion can be, but is not always, a part of conspiring; conspiring, legally, is not part of collusion.)

Black's Law is just a dictionary. Do not depend on that alone; 'collusion' is used in some jurisdictions to reference illegal acts:

Paul Rosenzweig is former deputy assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security and founder of Red Branch Consulting.

Collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law), so we should all just stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality. But that doesn’t mean that the alleged cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia is of no criminal interest. To the contrary, if true, it may have violated any number of criminal prohibitions.

For example, if Donald Trump Jr. sought “dirt” on Hillary Clinton from the Russians, he might be charged with conspiring to violate the election laws of the United States, which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value” to an electoral campaign. The opposition dirt is at least plausibly a thing of value. And to the extent that the Trump campaign aided, abetted or advised the Russians (or any other hackers) about what would be most useful to steal from the Democrats or how best to enhance the impact of their release, they may well have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

For example, if Donald Trump Jr. sought “dirt” on Hillary Clinton from the Russians, he might be charged with conspiring to violate the election laws of the United States, which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value” to an electoral campaign.

I understand your point; however, the example you provide illustrates exactly the point I made regarding legalese, if you will. Legally, there is a material difference between a contribution and a purchase. The difference is that of consideration. Purchases include the exchange of consideration; contributions (except for a contribution in which an equity stake is given in return, which is why, in most instances, we call such a transaction/exchange a stock purchase [1]) do not.

While the criminal statue you cited doesn't have anything to do with contract law, which is where the concept of consideration comes from, the fact remains that a purchase involves some type of contract, verbal, written and a set of explicit and implied elements, consideration, the contracting parties exchange. The existence of a contract of some form may (but not necessarily will) subsequently become a probative feature in establishing intent, such as intent to conspire to do "X," and/or the commission of an illegal act, assuming the objects of the contract are not legally eligible (in this case eligible under federal law) to be bought and sold.

Those are two examples of how consideration and contracting come into play in matter that at its heart really have nothing to do contracts. There myriad others. The absence of a comparatively clear basis for establishing the nature of an agreement when there is no consideration exchanged is part of why the code provision you paraphrased exists. (It's also part of why we have campaign contribution limits.) Investigators know damn well that they must look to something other than a contract to bolster an assertion about the purpose of a contributory transaction and the intent and expectations of the parties to it.


Note:

1. There is a type of equity-related contribution -- an initial contribution to form a business entity -- that even less resembles a purchase. It is not because the underlying substance of that transaction is the reclassification of assets, not an change in the ownership of them. The founding parties of a business, both before and after contributing assets to form the company, are nonetheless the owners of said company, thus the owners of the company's assets.
   
   I point out equity share transactions because all of them, despite the seeming presence of consideration, are contributions, not purchases. It critical to note, however, that when one obtains stock on the open market, rather than from the issuing company, that is a purchase transaction. Why? Because one's money given in exchange for the equity stake is purchased from an existing owner, not from the company itself; thus one's money doesn't land in the company's coffers as did the money provided by the "IPO" contributor.
   
   What's an "IPO?" It is certainly the first issuance of stock a company makes, but it's all every subsequent issuance of a new "bundle," sometimes called "class," of stock the company makes available. The proceeds from an IPO increase a firm's equity and cash (cash equivalent) account balances; exchanges of stock on the open market do not. thus contribution vs. purchase.