Tommy Tuberville admits he went to NYC to help trump break his gag order.

[westwall]

Here is all of Pg 190 from your source. What you posted does not appear. Why?

189
U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
ii. Willfulness
As discussed, to establish a criminal campaign-finance violation, the government must
prove that the defendant acted “knowingly and willfully.” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(1)(A)(i). That
standard requires proof that the defendant knew generally that his conduct was unlawful. Election
Offenses 123. Given the uncertainties noted above, the “willfulness” requirement would pose a
substantial barrier to prosecution.
iii. Constitutional Considerations
Finally, the First Amendment could pose constraints on a prosecution. Even if WikiLeaks,
as a non-citizen abroad, could not assert First Amendment rights, see DKT Mem’l Fund Ltd. v.
Agency for Int’l Dev., 887 F.2d 275, 284 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Bahlul v. United States, 840 F.3d 757,
797 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (en banc) (Millett, J., concurring) (“no governing precedent extends First
Amendment protection to speech undertaken by non-citizens on foreign soil”), WikiLeaks could
argue that the transmission of information into the United States that did not involve express
advocacy implicates the First Amendment rights of American audiences. See Lamont v.
Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 305 (1965) (treating limits on mailing propaganda into the
United States as “a limitation on the unfettered exercise of the addressee’s First Amendment
rights”); see also Bluman, 800 F. Supp. 2d at 290 (noting that the court’s interpretation of the
foreign-expenditure ban “does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or
spending money to advocate their views about issues”). Assuming that no coordination with the
Campaign occurred, a criminal prosecution of overseas actors providing non-express-advocacy
information to American listeners would likely be difficult.
iv. Analysis as to Roger Stone
The Office also considered whether Roger Stone could be prosecuted for any direct or
indirect contacts with WikiLeaks about its release of hacked emails for the purpose of influencing
the presidential election, and whether any coordination between Stone and WikiLeaks would affect
WikiLeaks’s criminal exposure. If WikiLeaks’s release of documents were conducted in
coordination with Stone (or others associated with the Trump Campaign), the activity would
arguably constitute a “contribution,” rather than an “expenditure.” Cf. 52 U.S.C.
§ 30116(a)(7)(B)(i) (“For purposes of this subsection . . . expenditures made by any person in
cooperation, consultation, or concert, with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, his
authorized political committees, or their agents, shall be considered to be a contribution to such
candidate.”). That characterization would potentially render Bluman’s express-advocacy limitation
inapplicable (because Bluman had applied that interpretation only to expenditures made
independent of a campaign) and would significantly alleviate the First Amendment concerns
identified above (because coordinated election activity would implicate the compelling interest in
preventing foreign participation in the U.S. political process and in avoiding quid pro quo
corruption or its appearance). See Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 357 (2010); FEC v.
Colorado Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431, 444-60 (2001); Bluman, 800 F. Supp.
2d at 288.
190

Because im2 is a low down lying pony soldier.

That's why.

 

[dudmuck]

If that were true, then all parties would have gag orders.

 

[rightwinger]

She denied for a long time. Was she lying then, or is she lying now? Every witness these clowns bring up are serial liars.

Link

 

[Nostra]

Link

Your ignorance is noted and laughed at.

 

[rightwinger]

Your ignorance is noted and laughed at.

I knew you couldn’t back it up

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

/——/ Free speech puts restrictions on the government, not on the people. What am I missing?

That Trump is a criminal defendant. Obviously.

 

[Crepitus]

.

Wait, don't you mean COMMIES!!!!

 

[OKTexas]

Wait, don't you mean COMMIES!!!!

Nope, you made a claim, back it up.

.

 

[Leo123]

He just comes out and says it, no shame at all.

This can't be kosher, can it?

It's obviously happening at trump's direction, so isn't this a violation?

He just comes out and says it, no shame at all.

This can't be kosher, can it?

It's obviously happening at trump's direction, so isn't this a violation?

Sham trial, sham gag order, sham judge.

 

[Dragonlady]

That’s what the FEC concluded

No it is not. The FEC concluded that the payment was incorrectly entered by an accounting dweeb and listed on their statements as "legal fees".

Unlike Donald Trump, Clinton is not a control freak who double checks every accounting entry before signing reports. That's what Hillary was cited for. Entering a payment for Oppo research as "legal fees".

Buying Oppo research isn't illegal. An arm's length transaction is the ONLY way of confirming it's "unbiased".

But keep posting easily debunked LIES, because you're so stupid you're voting for Donald Trump.

 

[Leo123]

No it is not. The FEC concluded that the payment was incorrectly entered by an accounting dweeb and listed on their statements as "legal fees".

Unlike Donald Trump, Clinton is not a control freak who double checks every accounting entry before signing reports. That's what Hillary was cited for. Entering a payment for Oppo research as "legal fees".

Buying Oppo research isn't illegal. An arm's length transaction is the ONLY way of confirming it's "unbiased".

But keep posting easily debunked LIES, because you're so stupid you're voting for Donald Trump.

Bullshit, the FEC closed its inquiry after failing to find that Trump neither knowingly or willfully violated campain finance law.

 

[Dragonlady]

It's called free speech hero. The gag order is unconstitutional anyways.

.

It's not "free speech". It's lies and bullshit and they all should be ashamed.

You're an idiot for believing Trump.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's not "free speech". It's lies and bullshit and they all should be ashamed.

You're an idiot for believing Trump.

That's outrageous!!

Only leftists are allowed to spread lies and bullshit, eh comrade?

 

[Crepitus]

Nope, you made a claim, back it up.

.

Water is wet, Son. Deal with it.

 

[justoffal]

List the underlying crime, or you have admitted that YOU are the liar.

GO!

I will! Trump beat Hillary and set the globalist agenda back a decade and for that he needs to die as far as they are concerned.

And remember who you're talking to. His standard answer for everything is:

WAYCISS!

 

[Crepitus]

Sham trial, sham gag order, sham judge.

Hey look! Fake news!!

 

[Leo123]

Hey look! Fake news!!

Fake trial.

 

[Crepitus]

Fake trial.

More fake news!!

 

[struth]

No it is not. The FEC concluded that the payment was incorrectly entered by an accounting dweeb and listed on their statements as "legal fees".

Unlike Donald Trump, Clinton is not a control freak who double checks every accounting entry before signing reports. That's what Hillary was cited for. Entering a payment for Oppo research as "legal fees".

Buying Oppo research isn't illegal. An arm's length transaction is the ONLY way of confirming it's "unbiased".

But keep posting easily debunked LIES, because you're so stupid you're voting for Donald Trump.

Did the FEC fine trump like they did Clinton or the dnc or Obama or xiden?

No

 

[Leo123]

More fake news!!

Give it up, Janglebones.