If you ascribe value to information (say, opposition research, which is regularly paid for by campaigns in the U.S.) then it’s not much of stretch:
12 Likes
Yeah, but it’s a little bit unclear what exactly you’re referring to here - in the clip above, Coons refers to “foreign dirt” and Don Junior’s “I love it” comment relating to the Trump Tower meeting. But Don Jr was never offered private information stolen from American citizens - he was offered “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia.” So you are conflating two separate and completely unrelated things - the offer of generic foreign dirt in the Trump Tower meeting, and the specific details of the DNC hack. Now the DNC hired an intermediary to get “foreign dirt” from Russian government agents, and also sent people to the Ukraine to get foreign dirt on the Trump campaign - so the point remains: both parties showed a willingness to utilize foreign dirt from Russian government sources against their opponents, the only difference being that the DNC employed a dodgy intermediary to get the dirt - and then it was basically leaked to the press (without full disclosure that it was oppo research from an unreliable source) and utilized as part of legal pretext to spy on members of the Trump campaign.
So, do they normally declare an in-kind contribution whenever anyone gives them information?
If the information (e.g. a poll or or a white paper or, in this case, opposition research) is provided free of charge and is used by the campaign in any way, they’re supposed to report it as an in-kind contribution. If they’re slapping the dirt up on Twitter and the candidate is using it in speeches (as opposed to using it more quietly) then they’d be foolish not to declare it, because someone’s going to ask detailed questions about where they got it from.
If they don’t report it and they get caught (and, given the nature of campaign staffs and some donors, they probably will get caught), it’s a serious violation of federal law. If the information is provided free of charge by a foreign government, it’s an illegal in-kind contribution whether or not it’s duly reported (and whether or not an autocrat who harbours ill-will against the U.S. and its liberal democratic norms is making the donation).
8 Likes
I think there are probably very good reasons, unrelated to this 21st century Red Scare, why Trump should be in jail.
1 Like
- If the Trump campaign considered the information legitimate opposition research then they should have reported it as such, just as the Clinton campaign did with the Steele investigation.
- If the Trump campaign recognized the information as something obtained through a criminal act then they should have reported it as such, just as the Gore campaign did with George W.'s stolen debate prep notebook.
- If the Trump campaign recognized the information as an act of espionage provided by a hostile foreign government attempting to influence the U.S. election then they should have reported that too because c’mon that’s basically treason.
11 Likes
Ours is well on its way and not getting much coverage. Roughly 1/5 appellate judges are Trump appointees, despite only being mid way through his first term.
2 Likes
Is this in a law or guidelines somewhere? The FEC examples are things that would normally be comissioned and paid for by a campaign. There are always people trying to give candidates information to help their campaign or encourage them to add or remove things their platform (eg., “Here is a pile of info on industrial pollution ruining our community - why aren’t you campaigning on that”). Do they say “Sorry, your information might be worth more than $2700 so I can’t look at it”?
Yes, like polls or white papers or opposition research that specifically benefits a campaign or supports its specific policy planks. There might be cases where your example of an industrial pollution study would be rejected or reported. For example, if it’s created for the campaign and framed or presented in a way that supports the campaign’s environmental policy or undermines the opponent’s policy, or if it’s a proprietary study not available for free to the public (e.g. through a public or academic library) that was purchased by the donor and then passed on to the campaign. Most normal campaigns are very careful about not crossing the line, especially with opposition research (which clearly benefits only one candidate).
This is why Barr was having problems: it’s hard for that toady to lawyerball his way out of this like he usually does because the campaign officials who thought that just taking this material from the Russians would be so awesome were bumbling morons like Don Jr. and Jared.
5 Likes
Who says they are unrelated? Roger Stone definitely knew about the DNC hack by Spring 2016, which means Manafort, Don Jr. and the entire Trump inner circle knew well before the Trump Tower meeting. What you call “generic foreign dirt” was later described by Don Jr’s lawyer as supposed specific evidence “that individuals connected to Russia were funding the DNC and supporting Mrs. Clinton”. Can you honestly convince yourself that Don Jr. went into that meeting thinking he was going to be getting anything other than info stolen from DNC servers? How did the Russian operatives know to push that very specific button in the first place? Can you at least admit it stinks to high heaven if you stop thinking in terms of individual actors in the Trump orbit and consider the Trump Campaign to be exactly what it is, a legal entity with corresponding legal responsibilities to follow federal criminal law and election law? I’m sorry, but the excuse of “the clean hand didn’t know the other hand was holding a pile of shit” doesn’t fly with me.
5 Likes
I am unaware of any effort to criminalize Jesus Christ.
7 Likes
What evidence is there that Stone definitely knew about the DNC hack in spring? The Mueller indictment doesn’t refer to him discussing the hacked emails until June, after the first tranche of them had been publicly released. Stone made completely wrong predictions about what stuff Wikileaks was going to release; the general consensus is that he had no advance or insider knowledge and was just talking through his hole basically as usual. "That individuals connected to Russia were funding the DNC and supporting Mrs. Clinton” - this had nothing to do with hacked DNC servers - if Russia were funding the DNC they would have their OWN documents to prove it, and that’s precisely what Don Jr was offered - Russian documents that showed Clinton’s dealings with Russia in a negative light! You’re saying that Don Jr went into the Trump Tower meeting with the expectation of getting stolen DNC emails with absolutely no evidence to back up that contention beyond your own personal hunch - that’s Russiagate in a nutshell. There is no evidence to suggest that the Trump campaign knew about the DNC hack until after the emails were released to the public - neither in the Stone indictment or the Mueller report as a whole.
“Our report indicates that Stone spoke with an unnamed contact during spring 2016 and told them that he had been in contact with Assange. From that contact, Stone learned that WikiLeaks “had obtained emails that would torment senior Democrats such as John Podesta, then campaign chairman for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”
The truth will come out eventually. I personally think it’s a stretch to assume Don Jr. decided, shortly after Russians hacked the DNC, to meet with some Russians about DNC insider info out of the fing blue, but who knows? Maybe they were just a bunch of bumbling fools giving off every appearance that they were involved in a criminal conspiracy instead of being actual criminals. Anything’s possible and only time and sunlight will tell. You seem to want to know less about “Russiagate”, I would personally like to know more.
9 Likes
from Mueller’s report:
“Immediately upon his return to London from that trip [in April 2016], Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. One week later, in the first week of May 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton.”
Yes the campaign absolutely knew about the emails before the Trump Tower meeting in June
9 Likes
I was mocking up a sign but… I am not a graphic designer
Sexual assault leaps to mind. Tax evasion / insurance fraud / other financial crimes seem pretty indisputable.
Also, I think (and mind you, this is just a guess, but it’s not exactly unfounded) he’s been laundering money for organized criminals for decades.
9 Likes
Thereottabe!
Of course, none of that is true except in Fox News fever dreams. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS in order to provide opposition research on Trump during the primaries by conservative Washington Free Beacon. The Clinton Campaign later hired Fusion GPS, and they already had parts of Steele’s research, and they paid him to continue. They provided Redacted versions to campaign consultants for the Clinton campaign. None of the info in the Steele reports were used by the campaign.
So take your Fox News talking points elsewhere. We’re not buying.
8 Likes
Technically, it’s a Blue Scare. The primary color of the Russian Confederation is a bright blue.
5 Likes
And, while Putin is of course ex-KGB and most people in senior positions of power and authority in Russia were Soviet officials back then, there’s nothing socialist or communist about Putin’s Russia.
It’s far, far closer to fascism, as in the real deal. (Militarism, blaming everything on the West, heightened nationalism, authoritarian leader who deliberately cultivates an aura of machismo and heroism, co-opting the Russian Orthodox Church to support the state, etc. etc.)
8 Likes
From the FEC website:
Contribution:
A gift, subscription, loan, advance or deposit of money or anything of value given to influence a federal election; or the payment by any person of compensation for the personal services of another person if those services are rendered without charge to a political committee for any purpose. 11 CFR 100.52(a) and 100.54.
and you can also have:
https://www.fec.gov/regulations/110-20/2018-annual-110#110-20-b
A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
“Oh, hey there Donny Jnr, I’m a russian dude and the Russian State Prosecutor has offered to provide the Trump Campaign with official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is very high level and sensitive information that is part of Russia and its government’s support to Mr. Trump.”
I think that fits.
https://www.fec.gov/regulations/110-20/2018-annual-110#110-20-g
g.Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals.No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
Donny Jnr: “if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.” Let’s arrange a meeting.
Hmm…
The only (official) reason no prosecutions were started over that meeting is that in order to constitute a felony (rather than a mere campaign finance violation) the person involved has to be acting knowingly and wilfully and the value of the infringement has to be over $25,000. Same applies for a misdemeanour except the threshold is $2,000.
In this case Mueller states that he wasn’t satisfied that he could establish the necessary knowledge on the part of Donny Jnr., Kushner, et al that what they were doing was illegal or that he’d be able to establish the value if any of what was being offered (since it doesn’t appear to have actually existed, I can see how that would be difficult).
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
p. 185-188
In other words, they were so clueless and incompetent about what they were doing that they get away with it. (I suspect that is partly why people at the top of organisations often are so staggeringly incompetent - it has a lot of personal advantages - see also The Gervais Principle theory of management.)
They probably should, yes.
The question is whether what is being offered (i.e.) a gift is “a thing of value” (which is a fairly wide category, essentially if it’s something that someone somewhere might possibly pay some money for, then it’s a thing of value - so clearly a nice research paper on industrial pollution is a thing of value because people are paid to produce them all the time) and whether it is being offered to influence the election.
Clearly it is. The people making the gift want to influence the way the candidate behaves in the election.
If it’s above the contribution threshold, it’s above the threshold.
Although I have to say I have no idea how those thresholds are ever complied with.
If you are genuinely interested in the legalities, there is plenty of information out there.
I’d suggest you stay away from newspapers, broadcasters etc. and go to the direct sources. That’s always good advice but especially so where legal and political stuff is involved.
The legal stuff always gets “simplified” for what the author thinks their audience can handle - which has the problem that if it could be simplified without losing important points, it already would have been.
And of course once politics is involved everyone has an interest in pushing interpretations on you.
6 Likes
