The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[radical right]

That doesn't change the fact that she wasn't arrested for what she thought. She was arrested for what she did.

What he did, was because of what she thought. If she didn't think she broke the law, she would never have lied to the FBI.

We know Martha Stewart lied, the question is what motivated her to lie?

 

[Flopper]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

If it happened just as you said, possibly the Trump Associate could be charged with not registering as a Foreign Agent. If the Trump associate had just said, that would be helpful without giving him any instruction on when to release the information, there would probably be no charge. However, it is likely that either this person would have lied or misrepresented the situation to salvage his career to the FBI or Congress . And that is illegal. Also, if there had been any quid pro quo arrangement, it would have been illegal.

However, the damage would not be an associate of Trump found guilty but rather the political fall out of confirmation that the Russians helped Trump win the election which a lot of Trump supporters do not believe.

OK, let's look at this. The FARA deals with representing the interest of a foreign government to influence the US government or one of its agencies. I don't think it would apply to private parties or private political campaigns. And why would anyone need to CYA when no laws were broken? Also I have yet to see any proof that the supposed Russian effort wasn't just to hurt the ***** and coincidentally aid anyone who was her opponent. Do you seriously think Wikileaks wouldn't have released the emails regardless if her opponent was Jeb, Cruz or anyone else? It's about time you folks disengage your political animosity and engage you brain for a change.

.

No, FARA covers political activity.
"FARA is a disclosure statute that requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities.

Clinton has always been a strong supporter of NATO, an organization that Putin has acknowledge as an enemy of the Russia People. Trump as a candidate states that NATO is obsolete and the U.S. might no longer be a part of the alliance. So if a member of the Trump campaign works with Russia to disclose information to defeat Clinton and elect Donald Trump, it would be clear violation of the statue of 1938 as well as the 1966 revision.
Foreign Agents Registration Unit (FARA)

Considering Trump has reconsidered his position on NATO I think that would be difficult to prove and so far everyone with knowledge of the investigation says there is no evidence of any such activity at this point. Since the election was 6 months ago if there were evidence you'd think they would know about it. I think that scenario is a bit of a stretch, but if it were proven you might have a point.

This is the definition of political activity under FARA and for it to apply it would have to include your scenario of something very similar.

(o) The term ‘‘political activities’’ means any activity that the person engaging in believes will, or that the person intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party; (p) The term ‘‘political consultant’’ means any person who engages in informing or advising any other person with reference to the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or the political or public interest, policies, or relations of a foreign country or of a foreign political party.

Foreign Agents Registration Unit (FARA)

.

No, it doesn't matter what the candidates position on NATO is today. What is relevant is their position at the time of the election and the hacking.

• Russia's policy toward NATO is well known. They have consider NATO an obsolete relic of postwar Europe and should be disbanded and have steadfastly worked toward that goal, politically, militarily, and economically.
• Clinton was a strong advocate of long standing US policy to support the NATO and has clashed with Putin several times over that policy.
• Trump during the election process said NATO was obsolete and threaten to take the US out the alliance which would destroy it as a political and military force. Also before the election, Trump was making statements about improving relations with Russia and how good it would be to have them as ally.

Clearly at that time the Russians would rather have Trump and not Clinton in the Oval Office. Their reason for doing so would clearly be to influence actions of US government under the next president. If any member of Trump campaign helped the Russians in anyway, they would be violating the statue.

 

[Flopper]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

In your scenario, probably no law is being broken. If they were complicit in spreading false Informstion to influence an election then they are probably flirting with treason. If they told the Russians not to react to sanctions because the new administration will be more forgiving then I'm guessing that's a violation... not sure which exact law it's breaking though. Perhaps treason as well. Undermining our government

Since the Trump associate was working with the Russian by requesting the release of the information on the Tuesday of the election, he was operating as an agent for a foreign power and would be required to register as such an agent and make periodic full disclosure. The punish is a fine of up to $10,000 and/or 5 years in prison.
Foreign Agents Registration Unit (FARA)

Excuse me, the term "Tuesday" is the generic term, election day was NOT part of it. That's one of the flaws of you regressives, you like to read things into everything that really isn't there.

.

From a legal standpoint, what Tuesday it might be is irrelevant. What is relevant would be the Trump associate telling the Russian when to release the damaging information to defeat Hillary.

But the real question is who's interest would the Trump associate be trying to advance? Trump or the Russians?

.

Both
Trump's policy at the time was Pro-Russian compared to the Clinton policy. Russia certainly had reason to work toward defeating Clinton and the Trump associates certainly had reason to help them. One of the primary goals of the investigation will be to determine whether the Trump campaign associates did or did not help them. If they did, they are going to be in deep shit.

 

[Slade3200]

Most the media is against Trump but the biggest cable news network in the USA is Fox and they definately lean Right and play defense for Trump. .

The media isn't against Trump, They're against the orange con-man who can't tell the truth about anything. All they do is point out how Trump lied about (fill in the blank) , and you view it as them being against Trump.

Yeah, if you are being honest you'd recognize that CNN has moved much closer to MSNBC both in their news programs in with their online articles. You make a fair point that they are simply reporting on Trumps lies, but they also load panels with 5 against 1 and then spend a whole hour attacking Trump while the 1 surrogate tries and stick up for him.

I agree that Trump brings it on himself, but we don't need to hear it all beaten to death for hours at a time. But I guess that's what brings the ratings.

 

[OKTexas]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

If it happened just as you said, possibly the Trump Associate could be charged with not registering as a Foreign Agent. If the Trump associate had just said, that would be helpful without giving him any instruction on when to release the information, there would probably be no charge. However, it is likely that either this person would have lied or misrepresented the situation to salvage his career to the FBI or Congress . And that is illegal. Also, if there had been any quid pro quo arrangement, it would have been illegal.

However, the damage would not be an associate of Trump found guilty but rather the political fall out of confirmation that the Russians helped Trump win the election which a lot of Trump supporters do not believe.

OK, let's look at this. The FARA deals with representing the interest of a foreign government to influence the US government or one of its agencies. I don't think it would apply to private parties or private political campaigns. And why would anyone need to CYA when no laws were broken? Also I have yet to see any proof that the supposed Russian effort wasn't just to hurt the ***** and coincidentally aid anyone who was her opponent. Do you seriously think Wikileaks wouldn't have released the emails regardless if her opponent was Jeb, Cruz or anyone else? It's about time you folks disengage your political animosity and engage you brain for a change.

.

No, FARA covers political activity.
"FARA is a disclosure statute that requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities.

Clinton has always been a strong supporter of NATO, an organization that Putin has acknowledge as an enemy of the Russia People. Trump as a candidate states that NATO is obsolete and the U.S. might no longer be a part of the alliance. So if a member of the Trump campaign works with Russia to disclose information to defeat Clinton and elect Donald Trump, it would be clear violation of the statue of 1938 as well as the 1966 revision.
Foreign Agents Registration Unit (FARA)

Considering Trump has reconsidered his position on NATO I think that would be difficult to prove and so far everyone with knowledge of the investigation says there is no evidence of any such activity at this point. Since the election was 6 months ago if there were evidence you'd think they would know about it. I think that scenario is a bit of a stretch, but if it were proven you might have a point.

This is the definition of political activity under FARA and for it to apply it would have to include your scenario of something very similar.

(o) The term ‘‘political activities’’ means any activity that the person engaging in believes will, or that the person intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party; (p) The term ‘‘political consultant’’ means any person who engages in informing or advising any other person with reference to the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or the political or public interest, policies, or relations of a foreign country or of a foreign political party.

Foreign Agents Registration Unit (FARA)

.

No, it doesn't matter what the candidates position on NATO is today. What is relevant is their position at the time of the election and the hacking.

• Russia's policy toward NATO is well known. They have consider NATO an obsolete relic of postwar Europe and should be disbanded and have steadfastly worked toward that goal, politically, militarily, and economically.
• Clinton was a strong advocate of long standing US policy to support the NATO and has clashed with Putin several times over that policy.
• Trump during the election process said the UN was obsolete and threaten to take the US out the alliance which would destroy it as a political and military force. Also before the election, Trump was making statements about improving relations with Russia and how good it would be to have them as ally.

Clearly at that time the Russians would rather have Trump and not Clinton in the Oval Office. Their reason for doing so would clearly be to influence actions of US government under the next president. If any member of Trump campaign helped the Russians in anyway, they would be violating the statue.

Only thing you're forgetting is the proof that they were knowingly doing it to advance Russia's interest and not Trumps. I think that would require very specific verbiage and I seriously doubt anyone would do that. A simple, "we're going to review all current policies", wouldn't do it, because every president does that.

.

 

[OKTexas]

In your scenario, probably no law is being broken. If they were complicit in spreading false Informstion to influence an election then they are probably flirting with treason. If they told the Russians not to react to sanctions because the new administration will be more forgiving then I'm guessing that's a violation... not sure which exact law it's breaking though. Perhaps treason as well. Undermining our government

Since the Trump associate was working with the Russian by requesting the release of the information on the Tuesday of the election, he was operating as an agent for a foreign power and would be required to register as such an agent and make periodic full disclosure. The punish is a fine of up to $10,000 and/or 5 years in prison.
Foreign Agents Registration Unit (FARA)

Excuse me, the term "Tuesday" is the generic term, election day was NOT part of it. That's one of the flaws of you regressives, you like to read things into everything that really isn't there.

.

From a legal standpoint, what Tuesday it might be is irrelevant. What is relevant would be the Trump associate telling the Russian when to release the damaging information to defeat Hillary.

But the real question is who's interest would the Trump associate be trying to advance? Trump or the Russians?

.

Both
Trump's policy at the time was Pro-Russian compared to the Clinton policy. Russia certainly had reason to work toward defeating Clinton and the Trump associates certainly had reason to help them. One of the primary goals of the investigation will be to determine whether the Trump campaign associates did or did not help them. If they did, they are going to be in deep shit.

Once again, if they wanted to defeat the *****, wouldn't they have released the emails regardless of who her opponent was? Remember, they were already in the DNCs system when Trump announced, what was the likelihood that he would beat 16 polished politicians? If you believed the polls it was impossible.

.

 

[Flopper]

If it happened just as you said, possibly the Trump Associate could be charged with not registering as a Foreign Agent. If the Trump associate had just said, that would be helpful without giving him any instruction on when to release the information, there would probably be no charge. However, it is likely that either this person would have lied or misrepresented the situation to salvage his career to the FBI or Congress . And that is illegal. Also, if there had been any quid pro quo arrangement, it would have been illegal.

However, the damage would not be an associate of Trump found guilty but rather the political fall out of confirmation that the Russians helped Trump win the election which a lot of Trump supporters do not believe.

OK, let's look at this. The FARA deals with representing the interest of a foreign government to influence the US government or one of its agencies. I don't think it would apply to private parties or private political campaigns. And why would anyone need to CYA when no laws were broken? Also I have yet to see any proof that the supposed Russian effort wasn't just to hurt the ***** and coincidentally aid anyone who was her opponent. Do you seriously think Wikileaks wouldn't have released the emails regardless if her opponent was Jeb, Cruz or anyone else? It's about time you folks disengage your political animosity and engage you brain for a change.

.

No, FARA covers political activity.
"FARA is a disclosure statute that requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities.

Clinton has always been a strong supporter of NATO, an organization that Putin has acknowledge as an enemy of the Russia People. Trump as a candidate states that NATO is obsolete and the U.S. might no longer be a part of the alliance. So if a member of the Trump campaign works with Russia to disclose information to defeat Clinton and elect Donald Trump, it would be clear violation of the statue of 1938 as well as the 1966 revision.
Foreign Agents Registration Unit (FARA)

Considering Trump has reconsidered his position on NATO I think that would be difficult to prove and so far everyone with knowledge of the investigation says there is no evidence of any such activity at this point. Since the election was 6 months ago if there were evidence you'd think they would know about it. I think that scenario is a bit of a stretch, but if it were proven you might have a point.

This is the definition of political activity under FARA and for it to apply it would have to include your scenario of something very similar.

(o) The term ‘‘political activities’’ means any activity that the person engaging in believes will, or that the person intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party; (p) The term ‘‘political consultant’’ means any person who engages in informing or advising any other person with reference to the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or the political or public interest, policies, or relations of a foreign country or of a foreign political party.

Foreign Agents Registration Unit (FARA)

.

No, it doesn't matter what the candidates position on NATO is today. What is relevant is their position at the time of the election and the hacking.

• Russia's policy toward NATO is well known. They have consider NATO an obsolete relic of postwar Europe and should be disbanded and have steadfastly worked toward that goal, politically, militarily, and economically.
• Clinton was a strong advocate of long standing US policy to support the NATO and has clashed with Putin several times over that policy.
• Trump during the election process said the UN was obsolete and threaten to take the US out the alliance which would destroy it as a political and military force. Also before the election, Trump was making statements about improving relations with Russia and how good it would be to have them as ally.

Clearly at that time the Russians would rather have Trump and not Clinton in the Oval Office. Their reason for doing so would clearly be to influence actions of US government under the next president. If any member of Trump campaign helped the Russians in anyway, they would be violating the statue.

Only thing you're forgetting is the proof that they were knowingly doing it to advance Russia's interest and not Trumps. I think that would require very specific verbiage and I seriously doubt anyone would do that. A simple, "we're going to review all current policies", wouldn't do it, because every president does that.

.

A lot depends on what was said and done by the Trump associates. I don't see much happening legally unless something really new is uncovered. At most somebody pleads guilty to a lesser charge and is put on probation. The problem will be the political ramifications of a real investigation that confirms the Russians helped elect Trump. That's something that a lot of Trump supporters don't accept.

 

[OKTexas]

OK, let's look at this. The FARA deals with representing the interest of a foreign government to influence the US government or one of its agencies. I don't think it would apply to private parties or private political campaigns. And why would anyone need to CYA when no laws were broken? Also I have yet to see any proof that the supposed Russian effort wasn't just to hurt the ***** and coincidentally aid anyone who was her opponent. Do you seriously think Wikileaks wouldn't have released the emails regardless if her opponent was Jeb, Cruz or anyone else? It's about time you folks disengage your political animosity and engage you brain for a change.

.

No, FARA covers political activity.
"FARA is a disclosure statute that requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities.

Clinton has always been a strong supporter of NATO, an organization that Putin has acknowledge as an enemy of the Russia People. Trump as a candidate states that NATO is obsolete and the U.S. might no longer be a part of the alliance. So if a member of the Trump campaign works with Russia to disclose information to defeat Clinton and elect Donald Trump, it would be clear violation of the statue of 1938 as well as the 1966 revision.
Foreign Agents Registration Unit (FARA)

Considering Trump has reconsidered his position on NATO I think that would be difficult to prove and so far everyone with knowledge of the investigation says there is no evidence of any such activity at this point. Since the election was 6 months ago if there were evidence you'd think they would know about it. I think that scenario is a bit of a stretch, but if it were proven you might have a point.

This is the definition of political activity under FARA and for it to apply it would have to include your scenario of something very similar.

(o) The term ‘‘political activities’’ means any activity that the person engaging in believes will, or that the person intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party; (p) The term ‘‘political consultant’’ means any person who engages in informing or advising any other person with reference to the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or the political or public interest, policies, or relations of a foreign country or of a foreign political party.

Foreign Agents Registration Unit (FARA)

.

No, it doesn't matter what the candidates position on NATO is today. What is relevant is their position at the time of the election and the hacking.

• Russia's policy toward NATO is well known. They have consider NATO an obsolete relic of postwar Europe and should be disbanded and have steadfastly worked toward that goal, politically, militarily, and economically.
• Clinton was a strong advocate of long standing US policy to support the NATO and has clashed with Putin several times over that policy.
• Trump during the election process said the UN was obsolete and threaten to take the US out the alliance which would destroy it as a political and military force. Also before the election, Trump was making statements about improving relations with Russia and how good it would be to have them as ally.

Clearly at that time the Russians would rather have Trump and not Clinton in the Oval Office. Their reason for doing so would clearly be to influence actions of US government under the next president. If any member of Trump campaign helped the Russians in anyway, they would be violating the statue.

Only thing you're forgetting is the proof that they were knowingly doing it to advance Russia's interest and not Trumps. I think that would require very specific verbiage and I seriously doubt anyone would do that. A simple, "we're going to review all current policies", wouldn't do it, because every president does that.

.

A lot depends on what was said and done by the Trump associates. I don't see much happening legally unless something really new is uncovered. At most somebody pleads guilty to a lesser charge and is put on probation. The problem will be the political ramifications of a real investigation that confirms the Russians helped elect Trump. That's something that a lot of Trump supporters don't accept.

And what happens when it turns up to be one giant nothing burger? The best I'm seeing at this point is Flynn may get busted for not reporting a payment properly, not for any collusion. Stone and Manafort are cooperating, that should tell you something. It won't look good for the commiecrats, the media or the intel agencies if this thing just fizzles or it turns out Seth Rich really was the leak. And all those red State Trump voters won't let you forget. The midterm massacre may be your own.

.

 

[Slade3200]

No, FARA covers political activity.
"FARA is a disclosure statute that requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities.

Clinton has always been a strong supporter of NATO, an organization that Putin has acknowledge as an enemy of the Russia People. Trump as a candidate states that NATO is obsolete and the U.S. might no longer be a part of the alliance. So if a member of the Trump campaign works with Russia to disclose information to defeat Clinton and elect Donald Trump, it would be clear violation of the statue of 1938 as well as the 1966 revision.
Foreign Agents Registration Unit (FARA)

Considering Trump has reconsidered his position on NATO I think that would be difficult to prove and so far everyone with knowledge of the investigation says there is no evidence of any such activity at this point. Since the election was 6 months ago if there were evidence you'd think they would know about it. I think that scenario is a bit of a stretch, but if it were proven you might have a point.

This is the definition of political activity under FARA and for it to apply it would have to include your scenario of something very similar.

(o) The term ‘‘political activities’’ means any activity that the person engaging in believes will, or that the person intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party; (p) The term ‘‘political consultant’’ means any person who engages in informing or advising any other person with reference to the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or the political or public interest, policies, or relations of a foreign country or of a foreign political party.

Foreign Agents Registration Unit (FARA)

.

No, it doesn't matter what the candidates position on NATO is today. What is relevant is their position at the time of the election and the hacking.

• Russia's policy toward NATO is well known. They have consider NATO an obsolete relic of postwar Europe and should be disbanded and have steadfastly worked toward that goal, politically, militarily, and economically.
• Clinton was a strong advocate of long standing US policy to support the NATO and has clashed with Putin several times over that policy.
• Trump during the election process said the UN was obsolete and threaten to take the US out the alliance which would destroy it as a political and military force. Also before the election, Trump was making statements about improving relations with Russia and how good it would be to have them as ally.

Clearly at that time the Russians would rather have Trump and not Clinton in the Oval Office. Their reason for doing so would clearly be to influence actions of US government under the next president. If any member of Trump campaign helped the Russians in anyway, they would be violating the statue.

Only thing you're forgetting is the proof that they were knowingly doing it to advance Russia's interest and not Trumps. I think that would require very specific verbiage and I seriously doubt anyone would do that. A simple, "we're going to review all current policies", wouldn't do it, because every president does that.

.

A lot depends on what was said and done by the Trump associates. I don't see much happening legally unless something really new is uncovered. At most somebody pleads guilty to a lesser charge and is put on probation. The problem will be the political ramifications of a real investigation that confirms the Russians helped elect Trump. That's something that a lot of Trump supporters don't accept.

And what happens when it turns up to be one giant nothing burger? The best I'm seeing at this point is Flynn may get busted for not reporting a payment properly, not for any collusion. Stone and Manafort are cooperating, that should tell you something. It won't look good for the commiecrats, the media or the intel agencies if this thing just fizzles or it turns out Seth Rich really was the leak. And all those red State Trump voters won't let you forget. The midterm massacre may be your own.

.

I don't think think real people care that much nor do I think you accurately forecast the future. Just look at the last too politicized "investigations" that the Right did to discredit Hillary... Benghazi and the Email server. Two nothing burgers... are you really gonna say that the Clinton benefited in the end? No, both investigations turned up nothing but she took a big hit.

Problem for you is the tables are turned now and Trump is Clinton.

Also Finkle is Einhorn

 

[hadit]

That's what you get when you call up criminals, terrorists, or others subject to FISA and criminal wiretaps. Hint - if you dial 911, your phone is being recorded. Obama isn't wiretaping your house.

Yeah, the maobama regime and hold overs breaking espionage laws. How hard are you going to cry when their identities are revealed and they're prosecuted.

.

I don't defend criminals. If they released classified material, they have to pay the piper. In fact, anyone who gives classified material to our enemies should face even harsher treatment.

How about people who are extremely careless with classified information and leave it easily available to be perused by unauthorized people? Should they face harsh treatment too?

 

[OKTexas]

Considering Trump has reconsidered his position on NATO I think that would be difficult to prove and so far everyone with knowledge of the investigation says there is no evidence of any such activity at this point. Since the election was 6 months ago if there were evidence you'd think they would know about it. I think that scenario is a bit of a stretch, but if it were proven you might have a point.

This is the definition of political activity under FARA and for it to apply it would have to include your scenario of something very similar.

(o) The term ‘‘political activities’’ means any activity that the person engaging in believes will, or that the person intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party; (p) The term ‘‘political consultant’’ means any person who engages in informing or advising any other person with reference to the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or the political or public interest, policies, or relations of a foreign country or of a foreign political party.

Foreign Agents Registration Unit (FARA)

.

No, it doesn't matter what the candidates position on NATO is today. What is relevant is their position at the time of the election and the hacking.

• Russia's policy toward NATO is well known. They have consider NATO an obsolete relic of postwar Europe and should be disbanded and have steadfastly worked toward that goal, politically, militarily, and economically.
• Clinton was a strong advocate of long standing US policy to support the NATO and has clashed with Putin several times over that policy.
• Trump during the election process said the UN was obsolete and threaten to take the US out the alliance which would destroy it as a political and military force. Also before the election, Trump was making statements about improving relations with Russia and how good it would be to have them as ally.

Clearly at that time the Russians would rather have Trump and not Clinton in the Oval Office. Their reason for doing so would clearly be to influence actions of US government under the next president. If any member of Trump campaign helped the Russians in anyway, they would be violating the statue.

Only thing you're forgetting is the proof that they were knowingly doing it to advance Russia's interest and not Trumps. I think that would require very specific verbiage and I seriously doubt anyone would do that. A simple, "we're going to review all current policies", wouldn't do it, because every president does that.

.

A lot depends on what was said and done by the Trump associates. I don't see much happening legally unless something really new is uncovered. At most somebody pleads guilty to a lesser charge and is put on probation. The problem will be the political ramifications of a real investigation that confirms the Russians helped elect Trump. That's something that a lot of Trump supporters don't accept.

And what happens when it turns up to be one giant nothing burger? The best I'm seeing at this point is Flynn may get busted for not reporting a payment properly, not for any collusion. Stone and Manafort are cooperating, that should tell you something. It won't look good for the commiecrats, the media or the intel agencies if this thing just fizzles or it turns out Seth Rich really was the leak. And all those red State Trump voters won't let you forget. The midterm massacre may be your own.

.

I don't think think real people care that much nor do I think you accurately forecast the future. Just look at the last too politicized "investigations" that the Right did to discredit Hillary... Benghazi and the Email server. Two nothing burgers... are you really gonna say that the Clinton benefited in the end? No, both investigations turned up nothing but she took a big hit.

Problem for you is the tables are turned now and Trump is Clinton.

Also Finkle is Einhorn

You right my forecast on the senate elections last year was off, by one.

Well I'm Man Enough To Admit I May Have Been Wrong

Oh and remind us again how many people voted for the ***** in the general election. I'd say she wasn't hurt too bad. If she hadn't taken so much for granted she likely would have won. She was just as incompetent with her campaign as she was with the rest of her life and still came close to winning the big one. The difference between her and Trump is the media pile on, a butt load of people aren't too happy with it now, imagine if it turns out to be nothing but smoke a mirrors. There will be a major backlash.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A thousand posts and this guy is still pretending no one can answer his question?

Goddam that's funny.

 

[Flopper]

No, FARA covers political activity.
"FARA is a disclosure statute that requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities.

Clinton has always been a strong supporter of NATO, an organization that Putin has acknowledge as an enemy of the Russia People. Trump as a candidate states that NATO is obsolete and the U.S. might no longer be a part of the alliance. So if a member of the Trump campaign works with Russia to disclose information to defeat Clinton and elect Donald Trump, it would be clear violation of the statue of 1938 as well as the 1966 revision.
Foreign Agents Registration Unit (FARA)

Considering Trump has reconsidered his position on NATO I think that would be difficult to prove and so far everyone with knowledge of the investigation says there is no evidence of any such activity at this point. Since the election was 6 months ago if there were evidence you'd think they would know about it. I think that scenario is a bit of a stretch, but if it were proven you might have a point.

This is the definition of political activity under FARA and for it to apply it would have to include your scenario of something very similar.

(o) The term ‘‘political activities’’ means any activity that the person engaging in believes will, or that the person intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party; (p) The term ‘‘political consultant’’ means any person who engages in informing or advising any other person with reference to the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or the political or public interest, policies, or relations of a foreign country or of a foreign political party.

Foreign Agents Registration Unit (FARA)

.

No, it doesn't matter what the candidates position on NATO is today. What is relevant is their position at the time of the election and the hacking.

• Russia's policy toward NATO is well known. They have consider NATO an obsolete relic of postwar Europe and should be disbanded and have steadfastly worked toward that goal, politically, militarily, and economically.
• Clinton was a strong advocate of long standing US policy to support the NATO and has clashed with Putin several times over that policy.
• Trump during the election process said the UN was obsolete and threaten to take the US out the alliance which would destroy it as a political and military force. Also before the election, Trump was making statements about improving relations with Russia and how good it would be to have them as ally.

Clearly at that time the Russians would rather have Trump and not Clinton in the Oval Office. Their reason for doing so would clearly be to influence actions of US government under the next president. If any member of Trump campaign helped the Russians in anyway, they would be violating the statue.

Only thing you're forgetting is the proof that they were knowingly doing it to advance Russia's interest and not Trumps. I think that would require very specific verbiage and I seriously doubt anyone would do that. A simple, "we're going to review all current policies", wouldn't do it, because every president does that.

.

A lot depends on what was said and done by the Trump associates. I don't see much happening legally unless something really new is uncovered. At most somebody pleads guilty to a lesser charge and is put on probation. The problem will be the political ramifications of a real investigation that confirms the Russians helped elect Trump. That's something that a lot of Trump supporters don't accept.

And what happens when it turns up to be one giant nothing burger? The best I'm seeing at this point is Flynn may get busted for not reporting a payment properly, not for any collusion. Stone and Manafort are cooperating, that should tell you something. It won't look good for the commiecrats, the media or the intel agencies if this thing just fizzles or it turns out Seth Rich really was the leak. And all those red State Trump voters won't let you forget. The midterm massacre may be your own.

.

Depends on what you call nothing. Most probably no one is going to go to jail. The investigation is not likely to help republican in midterms because republicans winning an election with the help of the Russians is not going to win any votes. However, I think what happens with healthcare, tax cuts, immigration, and how democrats spin it is going to be a big deal. Of course, there is always our unpredictable president.

Probably the most important thing that will come out of this investigation is to what extent Russians actually interfered in the election and how they did it. I think this really is a more serious issue than most people believe. Russians, planting false stories in media and interference in key congressional elections have been mentioned. The Russians have been doing this in other countries for years, possible even the US. Also, what steps can be taken to keep the Russians or other foreign countries from meddling in our elections.

 

[OKTexas]

Considering Trump has reconsidered his position on NATO I think that would be difficult to prove and so far everyone with knowledge of the investigation says there is no evidence of any such activity at this point. Since the election was 6 months ago if there were evidence you'd think they would know about it. I think that scenario is a bit of a stretch, but if it were proven you might have a point.

This is the definition of political activity under FARA and for it to apply it would have to include your scenario of something very similar.

(o) The term ‘‘political activities’’ means any activity that the person engaging in believes will, or that the person intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party; (p) The term ‘‘political consultant’’ means any person who engages in informing or advising any other person with reference to the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or the political or public interest, policies, or relations of a foreign country or of a foreign political party.

Foreign Agents Registration Unit (FARA)

.

No, it doesn't matter what the candidates position on NATO is today. What is relevant is their position at the time of the election and the hacking.

• Russia's policy toward NATO is well known. They have consider NATO an obsolete relic of postwar Europe and should be disbanded and have steadfastly worked toward that goal, politically, militarily, and economically.
• Clinton was a strong advocate of long standing US policy to support the NATO and has clashed with Putin several times over that policy.
• Trump during the election process said the UN was obsolete and threaten to take the US out the alliance which would destroy it as a political and military force. Also before the election, Trump was making statements about improving relations with Russia and how good it would be to have them as ally.

Clearly at that time the Russians would rather have Trump and not Clinton in the Oval Office. Their reason for doing so would clearly be to influence actions of US government under the next president. If any member of Trump campaign helped the Russians in anyway, they would be violating the statue.

Only thing you're forgetting is the proof that they were knowingly doing it to advance Russia's interest and not Trumps. I think that would require very specific verbiage and I seriously doubt anyone would do that. A simple, "we're going to review all current policies", wouldn't do it, because every president does that.

.

A lot depends on what was said and done by the Trump associates. I don't see much happening legally unless something really new is uncovered. At most somebody pleads guilty to a lesser charge and is put on probation. The problem will be the political ramifications of a real investigation that confirms the Russians helped elect Trump. That's something that a lot of Trump supporters don't accept.

And what happens when it turns up to be one giant nothing burger? The best I'm seeing at this point is Flynn may get busted for not reporting a payment properly, not for any collusion. Stone and Manafort are cooperating, that should tell you something. It won't look good for the commiecrats, the media or the intel agencies if this thing just fizzles or it turns out Seth Rich really was the leak. And all those red State Trump voters won't let you forget. The midterm massacre may be your own.

.

Depends on what you call nothing. Most probably no one is going to go to jail. The investigation is not likely to help republican in midterms because republicans winning an election with the help of the Russians is not going to win any votes. However, I think what happens with healthcare, tax cuts, immigration, and how democrats spin it is going to be a big deal. Of course, there is always our unpredictable president.

Probably the most important thing that will come out of this investigation is to what extent Russians actually interfered in the election and how they did it. I think this really is a more serious issue than most people believe. Russians, planting false stories in media and interference in key congressional elections have been mentioned. The Russians have been doing this in other countries for years, possible even the US. Also, what steps can be taken to keep the Russians or other foreign countries from meddling in our elections.

There's already been testimony that the Russians have been meddling in our elections for decades and short of proof that republicans have been complicit with it there will no impact. At this point there is more evidence of commiecrat dirty tricks and outright lies to influence voters, even minorities are getting wise.

.

 

[Slade3200]

No, it doesn't matter what the candidates position on NATO is today. What is relevant is their position at the time of the election and the hacking.

• Russia's policy toward NATO is well known. They have consider NATO an obsolete relic of postwar Europe and should be disbanded and have steadfastly worked toward that goal, politically, militarily, and economically.
• Clinton was a strong advocate of long standing US policy to support the NATO and has clashed with Putin several times over that policy.
• Trump during the election process said the UN was obsolete and threaten to take the US out the alliance which would destroy it as a political and military force. Also before the election, Trump was making statements about improving relations with Russia and how good it would be to have them as ally.

Clearly at that time the Russians would rather have Trump and not Clinton in the Oval Office. Their reason for doing so would clearly be to influence actions of US government under the next president. If any member of Trump campaign helped the Russians in anyway, they would be violating the statue.

Only thing you're forgetting is the proof that they were knowingly doing it to advance Russia's interest and not Trumps. I think that would require very specific verbiage and I seriously doubt anyone would do that. A simple, "we're going to review all current policies", wouldn't do it, because every president does that.

.

A lot depends on what was said and done by the Trump associates. I don't see much happening legally unless something really new is uncovered. At most somebody pleads guilty to a lesser charge and is put on probation. The problem will be the political ramifications of a real investigation that confirms the Russians helped elect Trump. That's something that a lot of Trump supporters don't accept.

And what happens when it turns up to be one giant nothing burger? The best I'm seeing at this point is Flynn may get busted for not reporting a payment properly, not for any collusion. Stone and Manafort are cooperating, that should tell you something. It won't look good for the commiecrats, the media or the intel agencies if this thing just fizzles or it turns out Seth Rich really was the leak. And all those red State Trump voters won't let you forget. The midterm massacre may be your own.

.

Depends on what you call nothing. Most probably no one is going to go to jail. The investigation is not likely to help republican in midterms because republicans winning an election with the help of the Russians is not going to win any votes. However, I think what happens with healthcare, tax cuts, immigration, and how democrats spin it is going to be a big deal. Of course, there is always our unpredictable president.

Probably the most important thing that will come out of this investigation is to what extent Russians actually interfered in the election and how they did it. I think this really is a more serious issue than most people believe. Russians, planting false stories in media and interference in key congressional elections have been mentioned. The Russians have been doing this in other countries for years, possible even the US. Also, what steps can be taken to keep the Russians or other foreign countries from meddling in our elections.

There's already been testimony that the Russians have been meddling in our elections for decades and short of proof that republicans have been complicit with it there will no impact. At this point there is more evidence of commiecrat dirty tricks and outright lies to influence voters, even minorities are getting wise.

.

Im sorry man, i've read pages of this but the whole "No evidence" thing is getting real old. There have been several reputable and bi partisan congressmen and intel officials that have actually seen the intelligence who all justify the collusion investigation. True there has been no hard evidence presented to the public... To use the cliche... There is a ton of smoke, you see the smoke right? You are asking to see the fire... The fire hasn't been found yet, but that doesn't mean you don't follow the smoke.

 

[OKTexas]

A thousand posts and this guy is still pretending no one can answer his question?

Goddam that's funny.

So what's you answer there skippy?

.

 

[OKTexas]

Only thing you're forgetting is the proof that they were knowingly doing it to advance Russia's interest and not Trumps. I think that would require very specific verbiage and I seriously doubt anyone would do that. A simple, "we're going to review all current policies", wouldn't do it, because every president does that.

.

A lot depends on what was said and done by the Trump associates. I don't see much happening legally unless something really new is uncovered. At most somebody pleads guilty to a lesser charge and is put on probation. The problem will be the political ramifications of a real investigation that confirms the Russians helped elect Trump. That's something that a lot of Trump supporters don't accept.

And what happens when it turns up to be one giant nothing burger? The best I'm seeing at this point is Flynn may get busted for not reporting a payment properly, not for any collusion. Stone and Manafort are cooperating, that should tell you something. It won't look good for the commiecrats, the media or the intel agencies if this thing just fizzles or it turns out Seth Rich really was the leak. And all those red State Trump voters won't let you forget. The midterm massacre may be your own.

.

Depends on what you call nothing. Most probably no one is going to go to jail. The investigation is not likely to help republican in midterms because republicans winning an election with the help of the Russians is not going to win any votes. However, I think what happens with healthcare, tax cuts, immigration, and how democrats spin it is going to be a big deal. Of course, there is always our unpredictable president.

Probably the most important thing that will come out of this investigation is to what extent Russians actually interfered in the election and how they did it. I think this really is a more serious issue than most people believe. Russians, planting false stories in media and interference in key congressional elections have been mentioned. The Russians have been doing this in other countries for years, possible even the US. Also, what steps can be taken to keep the Russians or other foreign countries from meddling in our elections.

There's already been testimony that the Russians have been meddling in our elections for decades and short of proof that republicans have been complicit with it there will no impact. At this point there is more evidence of commiecrat dirty tricks and outright lies to influence voters, even minorities are getting wise.

.

Im sorry man, i've read pages of this but the whole "No evidence" thing is getting real old. There have been several reputable and bi partisan congressmen and intel officials that have actually seen the intelligence who all justify the collusion investigation. True there has been no hard evidence presented to the public... To use the cliche... There is a ton of smoke, you see the smoke right? You are asking to see the fire... The fire hasn't been found yet, but that doesn't mean you don't follow the smoke.

Feinstein: No Evidence Of Russian Collusion With Trump Campaign, But There Are Rumors

Sanders: May Be No Evidence of 'Collusion' Between Russia, Trump Camp

'No evidence' Trump campaign aides recruited by Russia, former spy chief says

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...nce-so-far-of-trump-campaign-russia-collusion

Intel Chairman Nunes: ‘No Evidence of Collusion’ Between Trump Campaign and Russia

Schiff Can't Say There's Evidence of Trump Campaign Colluding With Russia

I could go on. The investigation has been going since July, after 10 months what is there to uncover?

.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

A thousand posts and this guy is still pretending no one can answer his question?

Goddam that's funny.

So what's you answer there skippy?

.

Here's one you lying sack of shit that fit your hypothetical scenario that you performed backflips and lies and then obfuscations and lies and finally lies and then more lies just to look like you knew what the **** you were talking about! 18 U.S. Code § 953

But being the dishonest, lying sack of shit you are you would rather weasel out of admitting it than acknowledging the criminal behavior in your hypothetical scenario, you piece of lying garbage!

 

[Slade3200]

A lot depends on what was said and done by the Trump associates. I don't see much happening legally unless something really new is uncovered. At most somebody pleads guilty to a lesser charge and is put on probation. The problem will be the political ramifications of a real investigation that confirms the Russians helped elect Trump. That's something that a lot of Trump supporters don't accept.

And what happens when it turns up to be one giant nothing burger? The best I'm seeing at this point is Flynn may get busted for not reporting a payment properly, not for any collusion. Stone and Manafort are cooperating, that should tell you something. It won't look good for the commiecrats, the media or the intel agencies if this thing just fizzles or it turns out Seth Rich really was the leak. And all those red State Trump voters won't let you forget. The midterm massacre may be your own.

.

Depends on what you call nothing. Most probably no one is going to go to jail. The investigation is not likely to help republican in midterms because republicans winning an election with the help of the Russians is not going to win any votes. However, I think what happens with healthcare, tax cuts, immigration, and how democrats spin it is going to be a big deal. Of course, there is always our unpredictable president.

Probably the most important thing that will come out of this investigation is to what extent Russians actually interfered in the election and how they did it. I think this really is a more serious issue than most people believe. Russians, planting false stories in media and interference in key congressional elections have been mentioned. The Russians have been doing this in other countries for years, possible even the US. Also, what steps can be taken to keep the Russians or other foreign countries from meddling in our elections.

There's already been testimony that the Russians have been meddling in our elections for decades and short of proof that republicans have been complicit with it there will no impact. At this point there is more evidence of commiecrat dirty tricks and outright lies to influence voters, even minorities are getting wise.

.

Im sorry man, i've read pages of this but the whole "No evidence" thing is getting real old. There have been several reputable and bi partisan congressmen and intel officials that have actually seen the intelligence who all justify the collusion investigation. True there has been no hard evidence presented to the public... To use the cliche... There is a ton of smoke, you see the smoke right? You are asking to see the fire... The fire hasn't been found yet, but that doesn't mean you don't follow the smoke.

Feinstein: No Evidence Of Russian Collusion With Trump Campaign, But There Are Rumors

Sanders: May Be No Evidence of 'Collusion' Between Russia, Trump Camp

'No evidence' Trump campaign aides recruited by Russia, former spy chief says

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...nce-so-far-of-trump-campaign-russia-collusion

Intel Chairman Nunes: ‘No Evidence of Collusion’ Between Trump Campaign and Russia

Schiff Can't Say There's Evidence of Trump Campaign Colluding With Russia

I could go on. The investigation has been going since July, after 10 months what is there to uncover?

.

I guess we will have to wait and see. The only thing that people like you and I should know is that we are NOT in the know.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A thousand posts and this guy is still pretending no one can answer his question?

Goddam that's funny.

So what's you answer there skippy?

.

Read your thread and you'll find it. If you want it spoon fed to you, have your caregiver do it.