(06-19-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We’ve historically seen campaigns, when offered information on their opponents from potentially untrustworthy sources, turn that over to the FBI instead of use it (example: Al Gore).

Quote:What matters in these cases is the veracity of information and the motivation of those handing out the information. Would it be more likely that your friend is telling you the truth and for a good reason than your adversary?

Quote:The point is that the Trump campaign, at best, was negligent in the manner of which they handled being contacted by Russian government representatives, and that y’all seem too eager to try and excuse that behavior.

Quote:You’re all also getting into a horrible gray area regarding not caring where or how information came to light. It’s not a far stretch to violating someone’s 4th amendment rights when you suggest it doesn’t matter how evidence is obtained.

(06-19-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We’ve historically seen campaigns, when offered information on their opponents from potentially untrustworthy sources, turn that over to the FBI instead of use it (example: Al Gore).

Quote:What matters in these cases is the veracity of information and the motivation of those handing out the information. Would it be more likely that your friend is telling you the truth and for a good reason than your adversary?

Quote:The point is that the Trump campaign, at best, was negligent in the manner of which they handled being contacted by Russian government representatives, and that y’all seem too eager to try and excuse that behavior.

Quote:You’re all also getting into a horrible gray area regarding not caring where or how information came to light. It’s not a far stretch to violating someone’s 4th amendment rights when you suggest it doesn’t matter how evidence is obtained.

(06-19-2019 12:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 12:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 11:11 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 09:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This. SOrry, but I thought it was clear in context,

I'd also add that the term 'adversary' is a political hot potato. I mean, we spied on Germany, remember? Are they an adversary? In some regards, yes.

There are people who are citizens of this country who want it to fail (and some taking efforts to make it happen) more than any other nation in the world. Russia doesn't want us to fail, that would put too much of a burden on the rest of the world... but they do not want us to prosper.


Agree with OO. Isn't the real question whether or not the information is true and not 'whom is reporting it'? You certainly might be more inclined to believe your friend than your enemy, but just because it comes from an enemy doesn't mean it isn't true or was learned via illegal means. In simplest terms, the Russians certainly know if Trump and company colluded with them. If they called the DNC and offered proof, you don't think they'd use that information? If the DNC instead called the FBI, what would the FBI do except investigate something they have already investigated and have no jurisdiction to compel testimony.

We’ve historically seen campaigns, when offered information on their opponents from potentially untrustworthy sources, turn that over to the FBI instead of use it (example: Al Gore).

What matters in these cases is the veracity of information and the motivation of those handing out the information. Would it be more likely that your friend is telling you the truth and for a good reason than your adversary? The point is that the Trump campaign, at best, was negligent in the manner of which they handled being contacted by Russian government representatives, and that y’all seem too eager to try and excuse that behavior.

You’re all also getting into a horrible gray area regarding not caring where or how information came to light. It’s not a far stretch to violating someone’s 4th amendment rights when you suggest it doesn’t matter how evidence is obtained.

4th amendment applies to the government, not citizens. It's not gray to me at all... and 2 centuries of examples make it clear

(06-19-2019 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
So, what if my partner is cheating with my best friend?

There see,s to be an assumption that the world is divided into those who love us (American citizens) and those who want to do us dirty (all foreigners).

Truth speaks for itself.

I would not advocate breaking in to get it. But if a burglar finds evidence of a nefarious plot, I want to know.

What the Clinton campaign did was so much worse than what the Trumps did. Clinton intentionally used false info.

Which is why I brought up that Germany is sometimes an adversary

93, answer me this....

Suppose that the Russians had evidence that the Koch brothers had completely rigged the voting booths in key counties that lead to 'stealing' the election. Who is our enemy here? The Russians? or the Koch brothers? Of course you'd turn it over to the authorities, but you'd also use it.

Second supposition, what if instead of that, 'what they had' was a video of Trump speaking at a Klan rally... which isn't illegal, but could certainly impact voters? Would you inform authorities of this and why? Of course you would use it.

And again, would Russia be our adversary here?



If you want to argue that because it's Russia, we should just ignore them, I'm wondering why Obama severely chastised Romney for suggesting that, and then indicated to Russia that he'd have 'much more flexibility after the election'. Why are we being flexible with our enemies?

I think the base supposition that Russia is the devil is where the argument starts to fail. As Bill Clinton famously said, it depends on what the definition of 'Is' is.

In all instances you inform the FBI that you have been contacted by representatives of the Russian government and pass this off to them. You don't use the info for personal gain in an election in either instance, as you don't know (i) the veracity of the information or (ii) the motivations of the people sending you that information.

How hard is that?

Why dont you ask Fusion GPS about the bolded edicts, or for that matter Perkins Coie, or for that matter the DNC, or for that matter the Clinton for President organization, or for that matter the fing FBI working with the Obama national security apparatus.

Precisely. How hard is it?

Cant wait to hear the rationale of how that is so totally different. Or on the other hand, it wont be addressed. 50/50 on which course is taken.

(06-19-2019 01:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We’ve historically seen campaigns, when offered information on their opponents from potentially untrustworthy sources, turn that over to the FBI instead of use it (example: Al Gore).

So if you were offered a video of Trump saying that he would 'grab a woman by the &^(&^', they would turn it over to the FBI and not use it?

Don't you have to first know what the information is? And just because you turned it over, doesn't mean you wouldn't also use it.

Quote:What matters in these cases is the veracity of information and the motivation of those handing out the information. Would it be more likely that your friend is telling you the truth and for a good reason than your adversary?

Agree with #1, but not with #2. As others have alluded, what if the reason your friend is telling you your wife is cheating is because he wants you to get divorced so that he can date her? That just creates TWO bad actors, and doesn't change what you do with the information given to you about your wife. If she said, you only found out because your friend wants us to divorce, that might make you not like your friend anymore, but it doesn't excuse your wife, does it?

Quote:The point is that the Trump campaign, at best, was negligent in the manner of which they handled being contacted by Russian government representatives, and that y’all seem too eager to try and excuse that behavior.

The reality is that 'that behavior' is an opinion, not a fact... and 'y'all seem too eager to try and convict someone based on an opinion'. Negligence is a legal term, and you haven't met the elements of that legal term. You're using it in a common vernacular.

Quote:You’re all also getting into a horrible gray area regarding not caring where or how information came to light. It’s not a far stretch to violating someone’s 4th amendment rights when you suggest it doesn’t matter how evidence is obtained.

Wow. You're violating someone's Constitutional right to innocence until proven guilty and then suggesting that an individual citizens are subject to rules clearly designed for the government and not citizens?

Nobody has suggested, and in fact I specifically addressed that someone acting on behalf of the government who violates someone's 4th amendment rights is a criminal... and often criminals literally get away with murder as a result... but that isn't remotely what has happened here.... and amusingly once again is the left accusing the right of what they have (more accurately but not 100% accurately) done.

Nobody has alleged that the Russians were acting on behalf of the US government... or that Trump's people were doing so... so the 4th amendment complaint is moot.... unless you're saying that Russia violated Hillary's 4th amendment rights which is true, but moot as they aren't subject to it.

Arguably, the bugging/monitoring of the Trump organization based on a weak FISA warrant was a violation of Trump's 4th amendment rights. I won't debate that here, but we're far closer to 'that' than we are to Trump having violated Hillary or the DNC's 4th amendment rights, even if they DID 100% collude with Russia to commit crimes to find dirt on Hillary. That might be a crime, but it's not remotely a Constitutional issue... and no court would throw that out as a result.

Quote:Wow. You're violating someone's Constitutional right to innocence until proven guilty

(06-19-2019 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, what if my partner is cheating with my best friend?

There see,s to be an assumption that the world is divided into those who love us (American citizens) and those who want to do us dirty (all foreigners).

Truth speaks for itself.

I would not advocate breaking in to get it. But if a burglar finds evidence of a nefarious plot, I want to know.

What the Clinton campaign did was so much worse than what the Trumps did. Clinton intentionally used false info.

In what way did Clinton intentionally use false information? And was information known to be false? And do we even know if Clinton knew about the Steele dossier and its contents (this is the same kind of distinction that I kept making regarding Trump and his campaign when talking about collusion)?

Why do you think what the Clinton campaign did was much worse than what Trump did?

(06-19-2019 12:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 11:11 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 09:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 04:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The argument is the inclusion of the word 'adversary' in the posit by 93.

What differences are there between information obtained by Russia vs information generated say, by, a British national. It isnt like some or most Brits won't have an underlying agenda of their own, right?

My question is why the magic line at 'foreign' source overall.

This. SOrry, but I thought it was clear in context,

I'd also add that the term 'adversary' is a political hot potato. I mean, we spied on Germany, remember? Are they an adversary? In some regards, yes.

There are people who are citizens of this country who want it to fail (and some taking efforts to make it happen) more than any other nation in the world. Russia doesn't want us to fail, that would put too much of a burden on the rest of the world... but they do not want us to prosper.

(06-18-2019 07:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess my partner is cheating on me.

I don’t see your point.

Agree with OO. Isn't the real question whether or not the information is true and not 'whom is reporting it'? You certainly might be more inclined to believe your friend than your enemy, but just because it comes from an enemy doesn't mean it isn't true or was learned via illegal means. In simplest terms, the Russians certainly know if Trump and company colluded with them. If they called the DNC and offered proof, you don't think they'd use that information? If the DNC instead called the FBI, what would the FBI do except investigate something they have already investigated and have no jurisdiction to compel testimony.

We’ve historically seen campaigns, when offered information on their opponents from potentially untrustworthy sources, turn that over to the FBI instead of use it (example: Al Gore).

What matters in these cases is the veracity of information and the motivation of those handing out the information. Would it be more likely that your friend is telling you the truth and for a good reason than your adversary? The point is that the Trump campaign, at best, was negligent in the manner of which they handled being contacted by Russian government representatives, and that y’all seem too eager to try and excuse that behavior.

You’re all also getting into a horrible gray area regarding not caring where or how information came to light. It’s not a far stretch to violating someone’s 4th amendment rights when you suggest it doesn’t matter how evidence is obtained.

4th amendment applies to the government, not citizens. It's not gray to me at all... and 2 centuries of examples make it clear

(06-19-2019 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
So, what if my partner is cheating with my best friend?

There see,s to be an assumption that the world is divided into those who love us (American citizens) and those who want to do us dirty (all foreigners).

Truth speaks for itself.

I would not advocate breaking in to get it. But if a burglar finds evidence of a nefarious plot, I want to know.

What the Clinton campaign did was so much worse than what the Trumps did. Clinton intentionally used false info.

Which is why I brought up that Germany is sometimes an adversary

93, answer me this....

Suppose that the Russians had evidence that the Koch brothers had completely rigged the voting booths in key counties that lead to 'stealing' the election. Who is our enemy here? The Russians? or the Koch brothers? Of course you'd turn it over to the authorities, but you'd also use it.

Second supposition, what if instead of that, 'what they had' was a video of Trump speaking at a Klan rally... which isn't illegal, but could certainly impact voters? Would you inform authorities of this and why? Of course you would use it.

And again, would Russia be our adversary here?



If you want to argue that because it's Russia, we should just ignore them, I'm wondering why Obama severely chastised Romney for suggesting that, and then indicated to Russia that he'd have 'much more flexibility after the election'. Why are we being flexible with our enemies?

I think the base supposition that Russia is the devil is where the argument starts to fail. As Bill Clinton famously said, it depends on what the definition of 'Is' is.

In all instances you inform the FBI that you have been contacted by representatives of the Russian government and pass this off to them. You don't use the info for personal gain in an election in either instance, as you don't know (i) the veracity of the information or (ii) the motivations of the people sending you that information.

How hard is that?

(06-19-2019 01:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 12:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 12:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 11:11 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We’ve historically seen campaigns, when offered information on their opponents from potentially untrustworthy sources, turn that over to the FBI instead of use it (example: Al Gore).

What matters in these cases is the veracity of information and the motivation of those handing out the information. Would it be more likely that your friend is telling you the truth and for a good reason than your adversary? The point is that the Trump campaign, at best, was negligent in the manner of which they handled being contacted by Russian government representatives, and that y’all seem too eager to try and excuse that behavior.

You’re all also getting into a horrible gray area regarding not caring where or how information came to light. It’s not a far stretch to violating someone’s 4th amendment rights when you suggest it doesn’t matter how evidence is obtained.

4th amendment applies to the government, not citizens. It's not gray to me at all... and 2 centuries of examples make it clear

(06-19-2019 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
So, what if my partner is cheating with my best friend?

There see,s to be an assumption that the world is divided into those who love us (American citizens) and those who want to do us dirty (all foreigners).

Truth speaks for itself.

I would not advocate breaking in to get it. But if a burglar finds evidence of a nefarious plot, I want to know.

What the Clinton campaign did was so much worse than what the Trumps did. Clinton intentionally used false info.

Which is why I brought up that Germany is sometimes an adversary

93, answer me this....

Suppose that the Russians had evidence that the Koch brothers had completely rigged the voting booths in key counties that lead to 'stealing' the election. Who is our enemy here? The Russians? or the Koch brothers? Of course you'd turn it over to the authorities, but you'd also use it.

Second supposition, what if instead of that, 'what they had' was a video of Trump speaking at a Klan rally... which isn't illegal, but could certainly impact voters? Would you inform authorities of this and why? Of course you would use it.

And again, would Russia be our adversary here?



If you want to argue that because it's Russia, we should just ignore them, I'm wondering why Obama severely chastised Romney for suggesting that, and then indicated to Russia that he'd have 'much more flexibility after the election'. Why are we being flexible with our enemies?

I think the base supposition that Russia is the devil is where the argument starts to fail. As Bill Clinton famously said, it depends on what the definition of 'Is' is.

In all instances you inform the FBI that you have been contacted by representatives of the Russian government and pass this off to them. You don't use the info for personal gain in an election in either instance, as you don't know (i) the veracity of the information or (ii) the motivations of the people sending you that information.

How hard is that?

Why dont you ask Fusion GPS about the bolded edicts, or for that matter Perkins Coie, or for that matter the DNC, or for that matter the Clinton for President organization, or for that matter the fing FBI working with the Obama national security apparatus.

Precisely. How hard is it?

Cant wait to hear the rationale of how that is so totally different. Or on the other hand, it wont be addressed. 50/50 on which course is taken.

I believe the Steele dossier was (i) not brought to the Clinton campaign by a representative of the Russian government and (ii) turned over to the FBI.

As much as you try to ignore this and close your eyes to it, these situations are different. Had Fusion GPS been contacted directly by the same Russian lawyer, and not gone to the FBI, then the issue would be the same. But oddly enough in Tanq world, the process of how one comes by information matters not.

(06-19-2019 01:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 12:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 11:11 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 09:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This. SOrry, but I thought it was clear in context,

I'd also add that the term 'adversary' is a political hot potato. I mean, we spied on Germany, remember? Are they an adversary? In some regards, yes.

There are people who are citizens of this country who want it to fail (and some taking efforts to make it happen) more than any other nation in the world. Russia doesn't want us to fail, that would put too much of a burden on the rest of the world... but they do not want us to prosper.


Agree with OO. Isn't the real question whether or not the information is true and not 'whom is reporting it'? You certainly might be more inclined to believe your friend than your enemy, but just because it comes from an enemy doesn't mean it isn't true or was learned via illegal means. In simplest terms, the Russians certainly know if Trump and company colluded with them. If they called the DNC and offered proof, you don't think they'd use that information? If the DNC instead called the FBI, what would the FBI do except investigate something they have already investigated and have no jurisdiction to compel testimony.

We’ve historically seen campaigns, when offered information on their opponents from potentially untrustworthy sources, turn that over to the FBI instead of use it (example: Al Gore).

What matters in these cases is the veracity of information and the motivation of those handing out the information. Would it be more likely that your friend is telling you the truth and for a good reason than your adversary? The point is that the Trump campaign, at best, was negligent in the manner of which they handled being contacted by Russian government representatives, and that y’all seem too eager to try and excuse that behavior.

You’re all also getting into a horrible gray area regarding not caring where or how information came to light. It’s not a far stretch to violating someone’s 4th amendment rights when you suggest it doesn’t matter how evidence is obtained.

4th amendment applies to the government, not citizens. It's not gray to me at all... and 2 centuries of examples make it clear

(06-19-2019 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
So, what if my partner is cheating with my best friend?

There see,s to be an assumption that the world is divided into those who love us (American citizens) and those who want to do us dirty (all foreigners).

Truth speaks for itself.

I would not advocate breaking in to get it. But if a burglar finds evidence of a nefarious plot, I want to know.

What the Clinton campaign did was so much worse than what the Trumps did. Clinton intentionally used false info.

Which is why I brought up that Germany is sometimes an adversary

93, answer me this....

Suppose that the Russians had evidence that the Koch brothers had completely rigged the voting booths in key counties that lead to 'stealing' the election. Who is our enemy here? The Russians? or the Koch brothers? Of course you'd turn it over to the authorities, but you'd also use it.

Second supposition, what if instead of that, 'what they had' was a video of Trump speaking at a Klan rally... which isn't illegal, but could certainly impact voters? Would you inform authorities of this and why? Of course you would use it.

And again, would Russia be our adversary here?



If you want to argue that because it's Russia, we should just ignore them, I'm wondering why Obama severely chastised Romney for suggesting that, and then indicated to Russia that he'd have 'much more flexibility after the election'. Why are we being flexible with our enemies?

I think the base supposition that Russia is the devil is where the argument starts to fail. As Bill Clinton famously said, it depends on what the definition of 'Is' is.

In all instances you inform the FBI that you have been contacted by representatives of the Russian government and pass this off to them. You don't use the info for personal gain in an election in either instance, as you don't know (i) the veracity of the information or (ii) the motivations of the people sending you that information.

How hard is that?

I fail to see how this accounts for the usage of the dossier...

Has it been verified YET?

The veracity is important. The motivations are not.

(06-19-2019 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 01:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 12:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 11:11 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We’ve historically seen campaigns, when offered information on their opponents from potentially untrustworthy sources, turn that over to the FBI instead of use it (example: Al Gore).

What matters in these cases is the veracity of information and the motivation of those handing out the information. Would it be more likely that your friend is telling you the truth and for a good reason than your adversary? The point is that the Trump campaign, at best, was negligent in the manner of which they handled being contacted by Russian government representatives, and that y’all seem too eager to try and excuse that behavior.

You’re all also getting into a horrible gray area regarding not caring where or how information came to light. It’s not a far stretch to violating someone’s 4th amendment rights when you suggest it doesn’t matter how evidence is obtained.

4th amendment applies to the government, not citizens. It's not gray to me at all... and 2 centuries of examples make it clear

(06-19-2019 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
So, what if my partner is cheating with my best friend?

There see,s to be an assumption that the world is divided into those who love us (American citizens) and those who want to do us dirty (all foreigners).

Truth speaks for itself.

I would not advocate breaking in to get it. But if a burglar finds evidence of a nefarious plot, I want to know.

What the Clinton campaign did was so much worse than what the Trumps did. Clinton intentionally used false info.

Which is why I brought up that Germany is sometimes an adversary

93, answer me this....

Suppose that the Russians had evidence that the Koch brothers had completely rigged the voting booths in key counties that lead to 'stealing' the election. Who is our enemy here? The Russians? or the Koch brothers? Of course you'd turn it over to the authorities, but you'd also use it.

Second supposition, what if instead of that, 'what they had' was a video of Trump speaking at a Klan rally... which isn't illegal, but could certainly impact voters? Would you inform authorities of this and why? Of course you would use it.

And again, would Russia be our adversary here?



If you want to argue that because it's Russia, we should just ignore them, I'm wondering why Obama severely chastised Romney for suggesting that, and then indicated to Russia that he'd have 'much more flexibility after the election'. Why are we being flexible with our enemies?

I think the base supposition that Russia is the devil is where the argument starts to fail. As Bill Clinton famously said, it depends on what the definition of 'Is' is.

In all instances you inform the FBI that you have been contacted by representatives of the Russian government and pass this off to them. You don't use the info for personal gain in an election in either instance, as you don't know (i) the veracity of the information or (ii) the motivations of the people sending you that information.

How hard is that?

I fail to see how this accounts for the usage of the dossier...

Has it been verified YET?

The veracity is important. The motivations are not.

The dossier was being investigated by the FBI because, shocker, it was turned over to the FBI...

Motivations ARE important! They're so important that our legal system takes them into consideration when judging guilt!

(06-19-2019 02:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 01:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 12:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 11:11 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  4th amendment applies to the government, not citizens. It's not gray to me at all... and 2 centuries of examples make it clear



Which is why I brought up that Germany is sometimes an adversary

93, answer me this....

Suppose that the Russians had evidence that the Koch brothers had completely rigged the voting booths in key counties that lead to 'stealing' the election. Who is our enemy here? The Russians? or the Koch brothers? Of course you'd turn it over to the authorities, but you'd also use it.

Second supposition, what if instead of that, 'what they had' was a video of Trump speaking at a Klan rally... which isn't illegal, but could certainly impact voters? Would you inform authorities of this and why? Of course you would use it.

And again, would Russia be our adversary here?



If you want to argue that because it's Russia, we should just ignore them, I'm wondering why Obama severely chastised Romney for suggesting that, and then indicated to Russia that he'd have 'much more flexibility after the election'. Why are we being flexible with our enemies?

I think the base supposition that Russia is the devil is where the argument starts to fail. As Bill Clinton famously said, it depends on what the definition of 'Is' is.

In all instances you inform the FBI that you have been contacted by representatives of the Russian government and pass this off to them. You don't use the info for personal gain in an election in either instance, as you don't know (i) the veracity of the information or (ii) the motivations of the people sending you that information.

How hard is that?

I fail to see how this accounts for the usage of the dossier...

Has it been verified YET?

The veracity is important. The motivations are not.

The dossier was being investigated by the FBI because, shocker, it was turned over to the FBI...

Motivations ARE important! They're so important that our legal system takes them into consideration when judging guilt!

Who turned it over, and to whom? What were their motivations?

What was the Clinton Campaign’s motivation in commissioning a foreign agent to interview other foreigners?

The left has lived with double standards so long, they think they are the standard, period.

(06-19-2019 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 02:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 01:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 12:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In all instances you inform the FBI that you have been contacted by representatives of the Russian government and pass this off to them. You don't use the info for personal gain in an election in either instance, as you don't know (i) the veracity of the information or (ii) the motivations of the people sending you that information.

How hard is that?

I fail to see how this accounts for the usage of the dossier...

Has it been verified YET?

The veracity is important. The motivations are not.

The dossier was being investigated by the FBI because, shocker, it was turned over to the FBI...

Motivations ARE important! They're so important that our legal system takes them into consideration when judging guilt!

Who turned it over, and to whom? What were their motivations?

What was the Clinton Campaign’s motivation in commissioning a foreign agent to interview other foreigners?

The left has lived with double standards so long, they think they are the standard, period.

I believe there is a justifiable investigation into the Steele dossier itself going on right now...

And the intent of the Republicans that started the Steele dossier, and the Clinton campaign that continued it, was to understand Trump's personal history and find out if there were any areas that they could leverage for their advantage. There's no reason that interviewing foreigners should be of a concern.

(06-19-2019 02:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 02:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 01:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I fail to see how this accounts for the usage of the dossier...

Has it been verified YET?

The veracity is important. The motivations are not.

The dossier was being investigated by the FBI because, shocker, it was turned over to the FBI...

Motivations ARE important! They're so important that our legal system takes them into consideration when judging guilt!

Who turned it over, and to whom? What were their motivations?

What was the Clinton Campaign’s motivation in commissioning a foreign agent to interview other foreigners?

The left has lived with double standards so long, they think they are the standard, period.

I believe there is a justifiable investigation into the Steele dossier itself going on right now...

And the intent of the Republicans that started the Steele dossier, and the Clinton campaign that continued it, was to understand Trump's personal history and find out if there were any areas that they could leverage for their advantage. There's no reason that interviewing foreigners should be of a concern.

So it doesn’t matter if the info comes from foreigners? Isn’t that what I have been saying?

(06-19-2019 03:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 02:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 02:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The dossier was being investigated by the FBI because, shocker, it was turned over to the FBI...

Motivations ARE important! They're so important that our legal system takes them into consideration when judging guilt!

Who turned it over, and to whom? What were their motivations?

What was the Clinton Campaign’s motivation in commissioning a foreign agent to interview other foreigners?

The left has lived with double standards so long, they think they are the standard, period.

I believe there is a justifiable investigation into the Steele dossier itself going on right now...

And the intent of the Republicans that started the Steele dossier, and the Clinton campaign that continued it, was to understand Trump's personal history and find out if there were any areas that they could leverage for their advantage. There's no reason that interviewing foreigners should be of a concern.

So it doesn’t matter if the info comes from foreigners? Isn’t that what I have been saying?

Do you actually thinking interviewing a foreign national and a foreign government offering assistance are the same thing?

(06-19-2019 03:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 03:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 02:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 02:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Who turned it over, and to whom? What were their motivations?

What was the Clinton Campaign’s motivation in commissioning a foreign agent to interview other foreigners?

The left has lived with double standards so long, they think they are the standard, period.

I believe there is a justifiable investigation into the Steele dossier itself going on right now...

And the intent of the Republicans that started the Steele dossier, and the Clinton campaign that continued it, was to understand Trump's personal history and find out if there were any areas that they could leverage for their advantage. There's no reason that interviewing foreigners should be of a concern.

So it doesn’t matter if the info comes from foreigners? Isn’t that what I have been saying?

Do you actually thinking interviewing a foreign national and a foreign government offering assistance are the same thing?

They both involve getting information from foreigners.

Explain how that is materially different in terms of the election law.

Quote:Experts told me that when it comes to campaign finance law, hiring or contracting a foreigner to do services for a campaign is allowed. “You can pay a foreign national to provide you with services, so a campaign, for instance, could have a campaign attorney who is a Canadian citizen,” Levinson said. “As long as you pay fair market rates for those services, that’s not what the federal campaign act says is prohibited. That’s just a fair exchange of money for services.”

If this kind of seems like a loophole, experts pointed out that it would be really hard to run a campaign otherwise. It would mean having to worry if the campaign signs you printed came from a foreign company, or if the catering firm you hired had foreign workers.

(06-19-2019 03:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 03:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 03:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 02:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I believe there is a justifiable investigation into the Steele dossier itself going on right now...

And the intent of the Republicans that started the Steele dossier, and the Clinton campaign that continued it, was to understand Trump's personal history and find out if there were any areas that they could leverage for their advantage. There's no reason that interviewing foreigners should be of a concern.

So it doesn’t matter if the info comes from foreigners? Isn’t that what I have been saying?

Do you actually thinking interviewing a foreign national and a foreign government offering assistance are the same thing?

They both involve getting information from foreigners.

Explain how that is materially different in terms of the election law.

In terms of campaign law, because one is receiving something of value directly from a foreign entity without paying for it and making that information public, and the other is not. One is a contribution and the other is a purchase.

You could literally drill down far enough to every contribution made to a campaign and find that it came from a foreign country - which is why the difference above matters. That sign donated to Trump - well it was made in China. What about those shirts that were donated - made in Vietnam. How about those hard earned dollars Bob in Minneapolis donated - well he works for a company based in Ireland.

I actually found this article after I typed out the above response, and amazingly it said almost the same thing:

Quote:Experts told me that when it comes to campaign finance law, hiring or contracting a foreigner to do services for a campaign is allowed. “You can pay a foreign national to provide you with services, so a campaign, for instance, could have a campaign attorney who is a Canadian citizen,” Levinson said. “As long as you pay fair market rates for those services, that’s not what the federal campaign act says is prohibited. That’s just a fair exchange of money for services.”

If this kind of seems like a loophole, experts pointed out that it would be really hard to run a campaign otherwise. It would mean having to worry if the campaign signs you printed came from a foreign company, or if the catering firm you hired had foreign workers.

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/14/18677631/trump-campaign-finance-law-fec-illegal-fbi

(06-19-2019 03:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 03:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 03:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 03:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 02:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So it doesn’t matter if the info comes from foreigners? Isn’t that what I have been saying?

Do you actually thinking interviewing a foreign national and a foreign government offering assistance are the same thing?

They both involve getting information from foreigners.

Explain how that is materially different in terms of the election law.

In terms of campaign law, because one is receiving something of value directly from a foreign entity without paying for it and making that information public, and the other is not. One is a contribution and the other is a purchase.

You could literally drill down far enough to every contribution made to a campaign and find that it came from a foreign country - which is why the difference above matters. That sign donated to Trump - well it was made in China. What about those shirts that were donated - made in Vietnam. How about those hard earned dollars Bob in Minneapolis donated - well he works for a company based in Ireland.

I actually found this article after I typed out the above response, and amazingly it said almost the same thing:

Quote:Experts told me that when it comes to campaign finance law, hiring or contracting a foreigner to do services for a campaign is allowed. “You can pay a foreign national to provide you with services, so a campaign, for instance, could have a campaign attorney who is a Canadian citizen,” Levinson said. “As long as you pay fair market rates for those services, that’s not what the federal campaign act says is prohibited. That’s just a fair exchange of money for services.”

If this kind of seems like a loophole, experts pointed out that it would be really hard to run a campaign otherwise. It would mean having to worry if the campaign signs you printed came from a foreign company, or if the catering firm you hired had foreign workers.

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/14/18677631/trump-campaign-finance-law-fec-illegal-fbi

So, hiring Steele to make coffee or hand out flyers is legal.

So, I guess in your mind, hiring him to did up dirt from Russians is the same.

BTW, was the crap the Russians fed him gratis, or did he pay for it?

(06-19-2019 01:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 12:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 12:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 11:11 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We’ve historically seen campaigns, when offered information on their opponents from potentially untrustworthy sources, turn that over to the FBI instead of use it (example: Al Gore).

What matters in these cases is the veracity of information and the motivation of those handing out the information. Would it be more likely that your friend is telling you the truth and for a good reason than your adversary? The point is that the Trump campaign, at best, was negligent in the manner of which they handled being contacted by Russian government representatives, and that y’all seem too eager to try and excuse that behavior.

You’re all also getting into a horrible gray area regarding not caring where or how information came to light. It’s not a far stretch to violating someone’s 4th amendment rights when you suggest it doesn’t matter how evidence is obtained.

4th amendment applies to the government, not citizens. It's not gray to me at all... and 2 centuries of examples make it clear

(06-19-2019 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
So, what if my partner is cheating with my best friend?

There see,s to be an assumption that the world is divided into those who love us (American citizens) and those who want to do us dirty (all foreigners).

Truth speaks for itself.

I would not advocate breaking in to get it. But if a burglar finds evidence of a nefarious plot, I want to know.

What the Clinton campaign did was so much worse than what the Trumps did. Clinton intentionally used false info.

Which is why I brought up that Germany is sometimes an adversary

93, answer me this....

Suppose that the Russians had evidence that the Koch brothers had completely rigged the voting booths in key counties that lead to 'stealing' the election. Who is our enemy here? The Russians? or the Koch brothers? Of course you'd turn it over to the authorities, but you'd also use it.

Second supposition, what if instead of that, 'what they had' was a video of Trump speaking at a Klan rally... which isn't illegal, but could certainly impact voters? Would you inform authorities of this and why? Of course you would use it.

And again, would Russia be our adversary here?



If you want to argue that because it's Russia, we should just ignore them, I'm wondering why Obama severely chastised Romney for suggesting that, and then indicated to Russia that he'd have 'much more flexibility after the election'. Why are we being flexible with our enemies?

I think the base supposition that Russia is the devil is where the argument starts to fail. As Bill Clinton famously said, it depends on what the definition of 'Is' is.

In all instances you inform the FBI that you have been contacted by representatives of the Russian government and pass this off to them. You don't use the info for personal gain in an election in either instance, as you don't know (i) the veracity of the information or (ii) the motivations of the people sending you that information.

How hard is that?

Why dont you ask Fusion GPS about the bolded edicts, or for that matter Perkins Coie, or for that matter the DNC, or for that matter the Clinton for President organization, or for that matter the fing FBI working with the Obama national security apparatus.

Precisely. How hard is it?

Cant wait to hear the rationale of how that is so totally different. Or on the other hand, it wont be addressed. 50/50 on which course is taken.

I believe the Steele dossier was (i) not brought to the Clinton campaign by a representative of the Russian government and (ii) turned over to the FBI.

As much as you try to ignore this and close your eyes to it, these situations are different. Had Fusion GPS been contacted directly by the same Russian lawyer, and not gone to the FBI, then the issue would be the same. But oddly enough in Tanq world, the process of how one comes by information matters not.

(06-19-2019 04:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 03:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 03:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 03:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 03:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Do you actually thinking interviewing a foreign national and a foreign government offering assistance are the same thing?

They both involve getting information from foreigners.

Explain how that is materially different in terms of the election law.

In terms of campaign law, because one is receiving something of value directly from a foreign entity without paying for it and making that information public, and the other is not. One is a contribution and the other is a purchase.

You could literally drill down far enough to every contribution made to a campaign and find that it came from a foreign country - which is why the difference above matters. That sign donated to Trump - well it was made in China. What about those shirts that were donated - made in Vietnam. How about those hard earned dollars Bob in Minneapolis donated - well he works for a company based in Ireland.

I actually found this article after I typed out the above response, and amazingly it said almost the same thing:

Quote:Experts told me that when it comes to campaign finance law, hiring or contracting a foreigner to do services for a campaign is allowed. “You can pay a foreign national to provide you with services, so a campaign, for instance, could have a campaign attorney who is a Canadian citizen,” Levinson said. “As long as you pay fair market rates for those services, that’s not what the federal campaign act says is prohibited. That’s just a fair exchange of money for services.”

If this kind of seems like a loophole, experts pointed out that it would be really hard to run a campaign otherwise. It would mean having to worry if the campaign signs you printed came from a foreign company, or if the catering firm you hired had foreign workers.

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/14/18677631/trump-campaign-finance-law-fec-illegal-fbi

So, hiring Steele to make coffee or hand out flyers is legal.

So, I guess in your mind, hiring him to did up dirt from Russians is the same.

BTW, was the crap the Russians fed him gratis, or did he pay for it?

In the eyes of campaign finance law, which is what you are asking about, yes, hiring a foreign national to do work for you is legal because you are paying for it and reporting it. It is therefore not a contribution.

I don't know campaign finance law well enough to know whether or not him paying for information himself would be of concern.

(06-19-2019 04:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 03:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 03:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 03:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 03:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Do you actually thinking interviewing a foreign national and a foreign government offering assistance are the same thing?

They both involve getting information from foreigners.

Explain how that is materially different in terms of the election law.

In terms of campaign law, because one is receiving something of value directly from a foreign entity without paying for it and making that information public, and the other is not. One is a contribution and the other is a purchase.

You could literally drill down far enough to every contribution made to a campaign and find that it came from a foreign country - which is why the difference above matters. That sign donated to Trump - well it was made in China. What about those shirts that were donated - made in Vietnam. How about those hard earned dollars Bob in Minneapolis donated - well he works for a company based in Ireland.

I actually found this article after I typed out the above response, and amazingly it said almost the same thing:

Quote:Experts told me that when it comes to campaign finance law, hiring or contracting a foreigner to do services for a campaign is allowed. “You can pay a foreign national to provide you with services, so a campaign, for instance, could have a campaign attorney who is a Canadian citizen,” Levinson said. “As long as you pay fair market rates for those services, that’s not what the federal campaign act says is prohibited. That’s just a fair exchange of money for services.”

If this kind of seems like a loophole, experts pointed out that it would be really hard to run a campaign otherwise. It would mean having to worry if the campaign signs you printed came from a foreign company, or if the catering firm you hired had foreign workers.

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/14/18677631/trump-campaign-finance-law-fec-illegal-fbi

So, hiring Steele to make coffee or hand out flyers is legal.

So, I guess in your mind, hiring him to did up dirt from Russians is the same.

BTW, was the crap the Russians fed him gratis, or did he pay for it?

In the eyes of campaign finance law, which is what you are asking about, yes, hiring a foreign national to do work for you is legal because you are paying for it and reporting it. It is therefore not a contribution.

I don't know campaign finance law well enough to know whether or not him paying for information himself would be of concern.

(06-19-2019 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 01:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 12:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 11:11 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We’ve historically seen campaigns, when offered information on their opponents from potentially untrustworthy sources, turn that over to the FBI instead of use it (example: Al Gore).

What matters in these cases is the veracity of information and the motivation of those handing out the information. Would it be more likely that your friend is telling you the truth and for a good reason than your adversary? The point is that the Trump campaign, at best, was negligent in the manner of which they handled being contacted by Russian government representatives, and that y’all seem too eager to try and excuse that behavior.

You’re all also getting into a horrible gray area regarding not caring where or how information came to light. It’s not a far stretch to violating someone’s 4th amendment rights when you suggest it doesn’t matter how evidence is obtained.

4th amendment applies to the government, not citizens. It's not gray to me at all... and 2 centuries of examples make it clear

(06-19-2019 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
So, what if my partner is cheating with my best friend?

There see,s to be an assumption that the world is divided into those who love us (American citizens) and those who want to do us dirty (all foreigners).

Truth speaks for itself.

I would not advocate breaking in to get it. But if a burglar finds evidence of a nefarious plot, I want to know.

What the Clinton campaign did was so much worse than what the Trumps did. Clinton intentionally used false info.

Which is why I brought up that Germany is sometimes an adversary

93, answer me this....

Suppose that the Russians had evidence that the Koch brothers had completely rigged the voting booths in key counties that lead to 'stealing' the election. Who is our enemy here? The Russians? or the Koch brothers? Of course you'd turn it over to the authorities, but you'd also use it.

Second supposition, what if instead of that, 'what they had' was a video of Trump speaking at a Klan rally... which isn't illegal, but could certainly impact voters? Would you inform authorities of this and why? Of course you would use it.

And again, would Russia be our adversary here?



If you want to argue that because it's Russia, we should just ignore them, I'm wondering why Obama severely chastised Romney for suggesting that, and then indicated to Russia that he'd have 'much more flexibility after the election'. Why are we being flexible with our enemies?

I think the base supposition that Russia is the devil is where the argument starts to fail. As Bill Clinton famously said, it depends on what the definition of 'Is' is.

In all instances you inform the FBI that you have been contacted by representatives of the Russian government and pass this off to them. You don't use the info for personal gain in an election in either instance, as you don't know (i) the veracity of the information or (ii) the motivations of the people sending you that information.

How hard is that?

I fail to see how this accounts for the usage of the dossier...

Has it been verified YET?

The veracity is important. The motivations are not.

The dossier was being investigated by the FBI because, shocker, it was turned over to the FBI...

Motivations ARE important! They're so important that our legal system takes them into consideration when judging guilt!