Foreign “opposition research” okay— President Trump

[Allandavid]

Dude, the actual law she was referring to is posted on this thread. What she said has been shown to be correct.

It’s often amusing to watch people telling you what you must be thinking and believing...

 

[NotreDame]

Dude, the actual law she was referring to is posted on this thread. What she said has been shown to be correct.

“Dude” I have read the statute. I have cited to it myself in my posts.

However, you have not “shown” what she said in the letter to be “correct.” Your statement of, “What she said has been shown to be correct,” is vague, ambiguous, refers to nothing substantively and is unconvincing.

Seems to me you, like others, just believe what she has said is correct without really questioning, or scrutinizing, or examining whether she is correct or why she is correct.

I do believe she is correct about the statute but I haven’t blindly accepted what she said as truth.

 

[NotreDame]

I used her statement as a reference to the law pertaining to this issue...

That’s the point. You think the law she cited, and her interpretation of it, is applicable, otherwise you would not have cited it. Which ALSO means you believe her interpretation is Right. So, I asked why?

You gave another unresponsive answer. So, you have no idea whether what she said is right and you have no idea whether the law she cited to is applicable to the facts of Wikileaks, Hillary’s emails, release of the emails, etcetera.

As I expected. You’ve just seized upon the statement of a government official because they suit your political sensibilities and you have no idea whether the statement is right or how the law applies to a situation you clearly think it does apply.

 

[NotreDame]

It’s often amusing to watch people telling you what you must be thinking and believing...

It’s amusing when you clearly telegraph what your thinking and believing but when asked for explication for those beliefs, you provide none.

 

[Allandavid]

It’s amusing when you clearly telegraph what your thinking and believing but when asked for explication for those beliefs, you provide none.

That would be “you’re”...you’ve made that error twice now, please correct your usage.

As one who has chided others previously about the use of “precision” in their choice of words, I’m sure you’d be grateful for the correction.

You’re welcome....

 

[essentialsaltes]

It could violate the statute (U.S. 52 30121), depending what transpires

And if what transpired is that he robbed a bank, it could violate the laws against bank robbery.

 

[NotreDame]

That would be “you’re”...you’ve made that error twice now, please correct your usage.

As one who has chided others previously about the use of “precision” in their choice of words, I’m sure you’d be grateful for the correction.

You’re welcome....

Another non-responsive answer. As I suspected, you have no idea, no clue, as to whether the statements in the letter you cited are accurate. You have no rational basis for concluding the statements are accurate, and ostensibly have not the slightest understanding of how or why the statute cited at the bottom of the letter is relevant to the situation you seek to apply the statute.

It is shameful that you just accept as true the remarks of a government official when they align with your political proclivities. It may be that you have an aversion, a political aversion, to engage in any critical analysis, or critical thought, of commentary highly critical of those people, individuals, or ideas in which you disagree with politically. The several posts by yourself that are devoid of any substantive support for your belief as to how and why Weintraub’s remarks are correct and how and why the statute applies on those facts you assume applicability, certainly bolsters my inductive analysis.

Your tragic attempt at obfuscation over minor and insignificant typos cannot detract from the fact those minor typos pale in comparison your mind numbing approach of assume as true what some government official has said, and avoid the plague of any critical inquiry or thought pertaining to the very veracity of the statements. Compounding this problem is to reference a statute as applicable to some set of facts without having any rational basis to believe the statute is applicable.

I will gladly accept those minor typos committed while posting from my cellular phone over your non-existent critical analysis approach displayed in this thread.

 

[NotreDame]

And if what transpired is that he robbed a bank, it could violate the laws against bank robbery.

Still do not get? Why am I not surprised? Pay attention:

Hislegacy's statement, to which you responded, said the following:

"In fact, Brian Fallon, the press secretary for Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2016 campaign, once said he would have been willing to travel to Europe to confirm dirt about then-candidate Trump."
​

You responded in the form of a question:

"Is confirming something illegal?"
​

Did I answer your question? Why yes I did, when I said:

It could violate the statute (U.S. 52 30121), depending what transpires, the transaction of traveling to Europe to confirm “dirt on then candidate Trump.”​

So your cute attempt at a terse, snooty reply above is rather hallow, given the broadness of your question, especially since a violation of the statute is possible in the context of traveling to a foreign country to "confirm dirt about then candidate Trump," thereby telling you that YES, it can be illegal. Got it? Got it now?

Let me provide a more substantive answer to your question of, "Is confirming something illegal?"

52 U.S.C. 30121 reads as follows:

(a) ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
​

So, analytically, for purposes of the statute, there is no difference between Brian Fallon, traveling to Europe to confirm "dirt about then candidate Trump" and speaking with a foreigner (not subject to the definition exceptions under the statute, in a European country, who has dirt on Trump and discloses the dirt on Trump to Brian Fallon, and Trump picking up the phone from a person located in Norway (said person not meeting any of the statutory definition exceptions under the statute) and listening as the person discloses to Trump the "dirt" they have on his political opponent.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Still do not get? Why am I not surprised? Pay attention:

Hislegacy's statement, to which you responded, said the following:

"In fact, Brian Fallon, the press secretary for Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2016 campaign, once said he would have been willing to travel to Europe to confirm dirt about then-candidate Trump."
​

You responded in the form of a question:

"Is confirming something illegal?"
​

Did I answer your question? Why yes I did, when I said:

It could violate the statute (U.S. 52 30121), depending what transpires, the transaction of traveling to Europe to confirm “dirt on then candidate Trump.”​

So your cute attempt at a terse, snooty reply above is rather hallow, given the broadness of your question, especially since a violation of the statute is possible in the context of traveling to a foreign country to "confirm dirt about then candidate Trump," thereby telling you that YES, it can be illegal. Got it? Got it now?

Let me provide a more substantive answer to your question of, "Is confirming something illegal?"

52 U.S.C. 30121 reads as follows:

(a) ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
​

So, analytically, for purposes of the statute, there is no difference between Brian Fallon, traveling to Europe to confirm "dirt about then candidate Trump" and speaking with a foreigner (not subject to the definition exceptions under the statute, in a European country, who has dirt on Trump and discloses the dirt on Trump to Brian Fallon, and Trump picking up the phone from a person located in Norway (said person not meeting any of the statutory definition exceptions under the statute) and listening as the person discloses to Trump the "dirt" they have on his political opponent.

The original claim that this discussion stems from was that Fallon's statement that he would be willing to go to Europe to confirm dirt on Trump proves that he would be willing to break the law. This is false. As you said, whether or not it broke the law would depend on what transpired. Since such a situation never happened (to our knowledge), all we can do is throw hypotheticals at it, which is pointless.

 

[NotreDame]

The original claim that this discussion stems from was that Fallon's statement that he would be willing to go to Europe to confirm dirt on Trump proves that he would be willing to break the law. This is false. As you said, whether or not it broke the law would depend on what transpired. Since such a situation never happened (to our knowledge), all we can do is throw hypotheticals at it, which is pointless.

Well, it was pointless until Essentialsaltes pursued the matter with the query Essentialsaltes posed.

But the hypotheticals are not entirely pointless, or mine was not, as they served to illuminate how and why Brian Hart's conduct could have implicated the statute in a similar manner as Trump's conduct, ostensibly that was necessary, since some posters here do not have any idea how the statute operates.

Which I pause to add that arguably, which is to say a decent argument can be made, that the facts surrounding the Steele dossier violated 52 U.S.C. 30121. I do no think such an argument is ineluctable, without more facts, but an argument can be made, just as a decent argument can be made Donald Trump Jr. violated the statute with the Trump Tower meeting, although that argument is also no ineluctable.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Well, it was pointless until Essentialsaltes pursued the matter with the query Essentialsaltes posed.

Which question do you refer to? The question of whether it confirms illegality (which is what hislegacy suggested)? Because the answer to that is "No." Neither does it confirm legality.

But the hypotheticals are not entirely pointless, or mine was not, as they served to illuminate how and why Brian Hart's conduct could have implicated the statute in a similar manner as Trump's conduct, ostensibly that was necessary, since some posters here do not have any idea how the statute operates.

That's kind of off-topic, which is why you're getting argument over it. To carry over the bank robber analogy from earlier, you're doing the equivalent of jumping into a discussion about whether or not being willing to carry your gun into a bank proves that you're a bank robber to discuss the legal intricacies of bank robbery. You're not wrong, and it's informative, but it's also irrelevant.

Which I pause to add that arguably, which is to say a decent argument can be made, that the facts surrounding the Steele dossier violated 52 U.S.C. 30121. I do no think such an argument is ineluctable, without more facts, but an argument can be made, just as a decent argument can be made Donald Trump Jr. violated the statute with the Trump Tower meeting, although that argument is also no ineluctable.

Fair enough. That would be an interesting discussion, but I think it would also take the thread pretty far off-topic.

 

[NotreDame]

The original claim that this discussion stems from was that Fallon's statement that he would be willing to go to Europe to confirm dirt on Trump proves that he would be willing to break the law. This is false. As you said, whether or not it broke the law would depend on what transpired. Since such a situation never happened (to our knowledge), all we can do is throw hypotheticals at it, which is pointless.

And since such a situation of someone from Norway calling Trump and giving them “dirt” on his opponent “never happened to our knowledge,” it is “pointless” to discuss the hypothetical.

Look, I appreciate your historical background but it doesn’t add or detract from what I said in response to Essentialsaltes’ question. The query was, “Is confirming something illegal?” That’s a broad question. It’s a very broad question. The proper answer is yes it can be, the best answer is it depends! As law professors famously detailed with their Socratic method, ask a very broad, and vast question, then the door is wide open to an answer that’s just as broad, which is “it depends.”

A logical answer to such a broad question is yes, it can be. The best answer is it depends.

 

[NotreDame]

Which question do you refer to? The question of whether it confirms illegality (which is what hislegacy suggested)? Because the answer to that is "No." Neither does it confirm legality.


That's kind of off-topic, which is why you're getting argument over it. To carry over the bank robber analogy from earlier, you're doing the equivalent of jumping into a discussion about whether or not being willing to carry your gun into a bank proves that you're a bank robber to discuss the legal intricacies of bank robbery. You're not wrong, and it's informative, but it's also irrelevant.


Fair enough. That would be an interesting discussion, but I think it would also take the thread pretty far off-topic.

That's kind of off-topic, which is why you're getting argument over it. To carry over the bank robber analogy from earlier, you're doing the equivalent of jumping into a discussion about whether or not being willing to carry your gun into a bank proves that you're a bank robber to discuss the legal intricacies of bank robbery. You're not wrong, and it's informative, but it's also irrelevant.

But you’re ignoring one important aspect, the very broad question posed. The question of “Is confirming something illegal?”, is a vast, broad, open ended question, covering the full spectrum of conduct ranging from not criminal to criminal. The proper answer is yes, it can be, and a proper answer is also no, depending on what happens. The best answer is it depends, which is what I initially provided. It is undeniable the question is broad, vast, and I answered the question.


And my response does answer that broad, and vast question. If it is a tangent, it is a tangent created by others but one I’m addressing.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

But you’re ignoring one important aspect, the very broad question posed. The question of “Is confirming something illegal?”, is a vast, broad, open ended question, covering the full spectrum of conduct ranging from not criminal to criminal. The proper answer is yes, it can be, and a proper answer is also no, depending on what happens. The best answer is it depends, which is what I initially provided. It is undeniable the question is broad, vast, and I answered the question.

Except, in context, the question actually being wasn't being asked. @essentialsaltes can correct me if I'm way off-base here, but I understood it as a rhetorical question posed in response to the false equivalence implied between Trump's statement and Fallon's statement.

 

[Sparagmos]

“Dude” I have read the statute. I have cited to it myself in my posts.

However, you have not “shown” what she said in the letter to be “correct.” Your statement of, “What she said has been shown to be correct,” is vague, ambiguous, refers to nothing substantively and is unconvincing.

Seems to me you, like others, just believe what she has said is correct without really questioning, or scrutinizing, or examining whether she is correct or why she is correct.

I do believe she is correct about the statute but I haven’t blindly accepted what she said as truth.

A reading of the law shows her statement to be correct. In order to confirm the veracity of her statement, I read the law. I’m not sure what else there is to scrutinize. If you want to refute her letter, go ahead. What have YOU done to “scrutinize or examine whether she is correct?”

 

[NotreDame]

And, for those quick to condemn Trump for saying he would violate U.S. law in his hypo, such as 52 U.S.C 30121, and cite to a letter mentioning the statute as the Gospel that Trump would be committing a crime, need to read for the first time, or re-read, Mueller’s report.

Mueller expressed some reservations whether info, damaging to an opponent’s candidate, constitutes as “thing of value” and also stated there are legitimate freedom of speech concerns. I say this because some of the very posters in this thread are taking Weintraub’s remarks in the letter as true, without much thought on the subject, because, I suspect, it is politically expedient.

 

[NotreDame]

A reading of the law shows her statement to be correct. In order to confirm the veracity of her statement, I read the law. I’m not sure what else there is to scrutinize. If you want to refute her letter, go ahead. What have YOU done to “scrutinize or examine whether she is correct?”

Yeah? Great. So, how exactly then does the “law” confirm her statement as correct?

What have I done to asssess her statement? Well, I began with the text of the statute, which is a very good start I might add, kudos to you.

But there are several assumptions to be made in assessing the veracity of Weintraub’s remarks in her letter, assumptions the text of the statute does not answer, which gives me pause, and some reservation about concluding, with a very high degree of confidence, her remarks in the letter are right. I’ve had to look into those assumptions.

 

[NotreDame]

Except, in context, the question actually being wasn't being asked. @essentialsaltes can correct me if I'm way off-base here, but I understood it as a rhetorical question posed in response to the false equivalence implied between Trump's statement and Fallon's statement.

The context you allude to isn’t evident from Post number 70 in which the question was made.

I’ve traced the posts backwards, including posts preceding number 70, and the context you allude to isn’t there.

The very content of the question shows a rhetorical question was not being presented.

Oh course, Essentialsaltes may adopt your suggestive “rhetorical question” mantra, but it doesn’t appear to be rhetorical. The context doesn’t show a rhetorical question, but bravo to helping a brother out to save face by posing something not suggested by the context.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The context you allude to isn’t evident from Post number 70 in which the question was made.

I’ve traced the posts backwards, including posts preceding number 70, and the context you allude to isn’t there.

It's hard to accurately gauge hislegacy's mind when he posted a linkless headline without any comment, but I took it as making an equivalence between Trump (initially) saying he would accept oppo information from a foreign government, and Fallon saying he would have been willing to travel to Europe to confirm some information.

We both seem to agree that the answer to the question is 'Maybe, depending on what would happen on this hypothetical trip.'

 

[Sparagmos]

Yeah? Great. So, how exactly then does the “law” confirm her statement as correct?

What have I done to asssess her statement? Well, I began with the text of the statute, which is a very good start I might add, kudos to you.

But there are several assumptions to be made in assessing the veracity of Weintraub’s remarks in her letter, assumptions the text of the statute does not answer, which gives me pause, and some reservation about concluding, with a very high degree of confidence, her remarks in the letter are right. I’ve had to look into those assumptions.

Yet you aren’t going to share any of that with us. LOL.