More Mueller news: Whitaker, Treason, and Farage.

[Gandalf]

If sourcing information from a foreign source is somehow criminal, what happens to Americans who read (for example) the BBC news website for news regarding their own election? Is that British interference in the election?

[The Romulan Republic]

If sourcing information from a foreign source is somehow criminal, what happens to Americans who read (for example) the BBC news website for news regarding their own election? Is that British interference in the election?

Of course sourcing information from a foreign source isn't illegal. Trump is allowed to read a British newspaper (or a Russian one) and then quote it in his campaign rhetoric, for example.

What is forbidden by law is contributions of material value from foreign persons or organizations, or coordination with foreign organizations.

Please do not obfuscate the issue by repeating Trumper disinformation and Whataboutism pretending that reading a foreign news article is equivalent to closely coordinating your campaign with a foreign organization.

Edit: Shit, as one of the few, perhaps the only, person on this board who has actually run as a candidate for political office, I can tell you that I had to be aware of a lot of distinctions like this when it came to campaign finance law. Now, I'm sure that the laws are not quite the same for a municipal candidate in Canada and a Presidential candidate in the US, but even in my case, there were different rules for certain forms of free publicity that was equally available to all candidates (like a public debate/town hall, or a newspaper article covering all the candidates), vs. campaign contributions, or spending campaign funds on adds supporting your candidacy, etc.

[Gandalf]

So if the BBC had found and released the "pee tape" or something of similar massive political value, would that constitute a contribution of material value from a foreign organisation?

[aerius]

What is forbidden by law is contributions of material value from foreign persons or organizations, or coordination with foreign organizations.

You can say that as many times as you want but it ain't gonna make it true. Show me the laws that say you can't. Guess what? You can't, because they don't exist, and the ones that do have so many loopholes that they might as well not exist.

[The Romulan Republic]

So if the BBC had found and released the "pee tape" or something of similar massive political value, would that constitute a contribution of material value from a foreign organisation?

Of course not. Its not illegal for foreigners to report on a campaign (and it would be impossible to wholly enforce such a prohibition in any case, I imagine).

It would be illegal for the BBC to give the tape to the Democratic candidate, or to coordinate its release with the Democrats to ensure the maximum benefit to their campaign, or engage in a quid pro quo with the Democrats for the use of the tape.

I'm honestly not sure what's so hard about this distinction.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

\The one thing in this case that nearly everyone agrees on is that we need a full, public report of Mueller's findings.

That won't happen because this has counter-intel written all over it in addition to it's mafia takedown, and counter-intel requires you to keep the enemy guessing in a 'you know that I know that you know' situation. You'll probably see everything in full two or even three decades from now, but not a day sooner.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll settle for a report with some sections redacted to preserve information (like intelligence sources) that must remain classified. Even if I know that the Usual Suspects would take such redactions as proof that its all a hoax.

[bilateralrope]

\The one thing in this case that nearly everyone agrees on is that we need a full, public report of Mueller's findings.

That won't happen because this has counter-intel written all over it in addition to it's mafia takedown, and counter-intel requires you to keep the enemy guessing in a 'you know that I know that you know' situation. You'll probably see everything in full two or even three decades from now, but not a day sooner.

I'm not so sure about that. If the allegations of collusion are true*, that means Trump needs to be removed. Which is going to be a very public process. Keeping details secret goes against the goal of protecting the US from foreign interference.

*I believe them. Though I haven't seen enough evidence to convict if I was on the jury.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd probably vote to convict Trump for obstruction based on publicly available evidence, but not for conspiracy, money-laundering, etc, or for Treason (although my personal view is that he's "innocent until proven guilty" in much the same way that most people believe OJ Simpson was "innocent").

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

I'm not so sure about that. If the allegations of collusion are true*, that means Trump needs to be removed. Which is going to be a very public process. Keeping details secret goes against the goal of protecting the US from foreign interference.

*I believe them. Though I haven't seen enough evidence to convict if I was on the jury.

Here's the thing, this is going well into 'counter intelligence' which is the aforementioned 'you know that I know that you know...' situation. By going public with the sources, then Russia will not only kill them all to ensure that there is no evidence but it would make counter intelligence that much harder. Due to the legal process, that means Trump and co get off pretty much scott free.

We're no longer just in the legal realm kid, we're in the world of espionage and counter espionage... and that has certain quirks that make democracy detrimental to it's workings.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not so sure about that. If the allegations of collusion are true*, that means Trump needs to be removed. Which is going to be a very public process. Keeping details secret goes against the goal of protecting the US from foreign interference.

*I believe them. Though I haven't seen enough evidence to convict if I was on the jury.

Here's the thing, this is going well into 'counter intelligence' which is the aforementioned 'you know that I know that you know...' situation. By going public with the sources, then Russia will not only kill them all to ensure that there is no evidence but it would make counter intelligence that much harder. Due to the legal process, that means Trump and co get off pretty much scott free.

We're no longer just in the legal realm kid, we're in the world of espionage and counter espionage... and that has certain quirks that make democracy detrimental to it's workings.

Ah, back to your theme of "we need to get rid of democracy to save democracy", I see.

Leaving all that aside... spies have been put on trial and convicted before. I don't see why the needs of an intelligence investigation necessarily prohibit trial and conviction. Hell, we have closed courtrooms with the accusers/defendants identities concealed for cases involving minors. The legal system can handle this shit.

For that matter, does impeachment and trial in the Senate have to be done entirely publicly? To my knowledge, there's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting closed door sessions in an impeachment trial, even though it would probably lead to political controversy.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Ah, back to your theme of "we need to get rid of democracy to save democracy", I see.

Here's the thing, this has become more of a counter-intelligence operation than a simple legal investigation. That means all sources must be secured and all witnesses and human sources protected. Given how far Russia is willing to go to tie up loose ends (a defector getting nerve gassed in public in Britain, one of Steele's sources getting a 9mm 'gift' in the back seat of his car in Moscow to just name a few)... this caution is warranted.

Remember, our court system is designed around evidence, and right now everyone involved in this insanity is trying to destroy as much evidence as possible. That is why we've had pre-dawn arrests quite often in this, as the targets are those who are incredibly willing to destroy evidence and/or leave the country.

Without that evidence, Trump and co walks. The FBI is going to keep as much evidence as it can under tight guard due to how deep the rabbit hole has become.

Leaving all that aside... spies have been put on trial and convicted before. I don't see why the needs of an intelligence investigation necessarily prohibit trial and conviction. Hell, we have closed courtrooms with the accusers/defendants identities concealed for cases involving minors. The legal system can handle this shit.

All espionage cases has much of their evidence made classified due to the very nature of the work, as the white and black morality no longer applies when you get into the moral mire that is espionage.

For that matter, does impeachment and trial in the Senate have to be done entirely publicly? To my knowledge, there's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting closed door sessions in an impeachment trial, even though it would probably lead to political controversy.

Problem is that we're not dealing with a simple legal case anymore, but one with counter-intelligence involved which changes all the rules from the moment that counter-intelligence is involved.

[Vympel]

Vymple, that's a preposterous argument and you know it. You take one thing out of context, without providing an exact quote, and claim that because Stone didn't at some point know exactly what Wikileaks had, this proves Trump couldn't have colluded with Russia? This is supposed to be a valid point?

What's taken out of context? What 'exact quote'? Explain yourself.

It's really simple. If Trump was colluding with Russia, why the fuck does he need Roger Stone to go to wikileaks asking them for shit? It's a simple question with a simple answer.

If sourcing information from a foreign source is somehow criminal, what happens to Americans who read (for example) the BBC news website for news regarding their own election? Is that British interference in the election?

Of course sourcing information from a foreign source isn't illegal. Trump is allowed to read a British newspaper (or a Russian one) and then quote it in his campaign rhetoric, for example.

What is forbidden by law is contributions of material value from foreign persons or organizations, or coordination with foreign organizations.

Please do not obfuscate the issue by repeating Trumper disinformation and Whataboutism pretending that reading a foreign news article is equivalent to closely coordinating your campaign with a foreign organization.

Edit: Shit, as one of the few, perhaps the only, person on this board who has actually run as a candidate for political office, I can tell you that I had to be aware of a lot of distinctions like this when it came to campaign finance law. Now, I'm sure that the laws are not quite the same for a municipal candidate in Canada and a Presidential candidate in the US, but even in my case, there were different rules for certain forms of free publicity that was equally available to all candidates (like a public debate/town hall, or a newspaper article covering all the candidates), vs. campaign contributions, or spending campaign funds on adds supporting your candidacy, etc.

Still waiting for a single shred of case law that says getting information from a foreign person is illegal. Or are you just going to pretend that challenge wasn't made?

[Gandalf]

So if the BBC had found and released the "pee tape" or something of similar massive political value, would that constitute a contribution of material value from a foreign organisation?

Of course not. Its not illegal for foreigners to report on a campaign (and it would be impossible to wholly enforce such a prohibition in any case, I imagine).

It would be illegal for the BBC to give the tape to the Democratic candidate, or to coordinate its release with the Democrats to ensure the maximum benefit to their campaign, or engage in a quid pro quo with the Democrats for the use of the tape.

I'm honestly not sure what's so hard about this distinction.

Before this goes further, do you happen to have this law on hand? I'd be fascinated to know how that is worded, considering the multinational ownership of a lot of US media and their coordination with campaigns.

I recall reading that all of the Trump coverage in 2016 amounted to some three billion dollars in free promotion, which leaves me wondering about the ownership of the media outlets which made that coverage and how that would fall under that law you're citing.

[bilateralrope]

I'm not so sure about that. If the allegations of collusion are true*, that means Trump needs to be removed. Which is going to be a very public process. Keeping details secret goes against the goal of protecting the US from foreign interference.

*I believe them. Though I haven't seen enough evidence to convict if I was on the jury.

Here's the thing, this is going well into 'counter intelligence' which is the aforementioned 'you know that I know that you know...' situation. By going public with the sources, then Russia will not only kill them all to ensure that there is no evidence but it would make counter intelligence that much harder. Due to the legal process, that means Trump and co get off pretty much scott free.

We're no longer just in the legal realm kid, we're in the world of espionage and counter espionage... and that has certain quirks that make democracy detrimental to it's workings.

What good is a counter intelligence operation that leaves a Russian agent as president ?

What good is a counter intelligence operation that hamstrings itself because it puts secrecy above protecting the nation ?


Sometimes counter intelligence operations have to burn their sources to counter enemy action. This is one of those times.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

What good is a counter intelligence operation that leaves a Russian agent as president ?

What good is a counter intelligence operation that hamstrings itself because it puts secrecy above protecting the nation ?


Sometimes counter intelligence operations have to burn their sources to counter enemy action. This is one of those times.

Not if they're eliminated before you put Trump and co behind bars. The justice system is built around analyzing and arguing over evidence, and you don't have a case without that evidence. In addition, you assume that we're in the realm of black and white instead of being in a world where morality is grey at best.

Thus, all evidence is being classified to the public at large, as this investigation has revealed quite a bit on the 2016 operation that Russia carried out and simply revealing it now would be detrimental to future counter-intelligence operations in this field.

[bilateralrope]

What good is a counter intelligence operation that leaves a Russian agent as president ?

What good is a counter intelligence operation that hamstrings itself because it puts secrecy above protecting the nation ?


Sometimes counter intelligence operations have to burn their sources to counter enemy action. This is one of those times.

Not if they're eliminated before you put Trump and co behind bars. The justice system is built around analyzing and arguing over evidence, and you don't have a case without that evidence. In addition, you assume that we're in the realm of black and white instead of being in a world where morality is grey at best.

Thus, all evidence is being classified to the public at large, as this investigation has revealed quite a bit on the 2016 operation that Russia carried out and simply revealing it now would be detrimental to future counter-intelligence operations in this field.

I note that you didn't answer the question "What good is a counter intelligence operation that leaves a Russian agent as president ?"

So, if Trump really is a Russian agent, how do they remove him without going public ?

Or are you saying that they should leave the presidency under russian control because secrecy must be preserved ?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

I note that you didn't answer the question "What good is a counter intelligence operation that leaves a Russian agent as president ?"

So, if Trump really is a Russian agent, how do they remove him without going public ?

Or are you saying that they should leave the presidency under russian control because secrecy must be preserved ?

Until they can get said agent behind bars through the court system, it has to be classified due to the fact that Russia is willing to kill anyone that would be considered 'loose ends' (does the nerve gassing of a Russian defector in Britain -which hospitalized several civilians- and one of Steele's sources quite literally turning up dead in the back seat of his car in Moscow with a 9mm 'gift' within days of the release of the Steele Dossier mean anything to you?) and those who are 'loose ends' willing to destroy any and all evidence if they believe that the hammer of the law is coming for them. That is why Mueller has been so fucking successful so far as his targets don't know if they're next. He moves silently and without warning (from a legal standpoint), only striking when only absolutely having to.

Public opinion can't put someone in jail (or the likes of Al Capone would have been jailed in Alcatraz far earlier than OTL, also remember that while everyone knew that Al Capone had been carving a blood soaked empire across Chicago, the prosecutors didn't have the evidence, hence why he was jailed on tax evasion instead of murder because that was the only thing they had evidence for), only evidence.

Without that evidence, you'll have the Russian Agents still around due to the virtue of our judicial system. That evidence and those witnesses must be protected to ensure that we can jail them. The entirety of the hows of 2016 are likely not going to be released for decades once this is all said and done, as it will allow the SVR (aka former KGB aka Russian Foreign Intelligence) to patch holes in their program and make it that much harder to find and track. Some witnesses will be forced into the witness protection program because of how willing Russia is willing to go to kill anyone that could interrupt their operations. That is only after Trump and Co are behind bars.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Before this goes further, do you happen to have this law on hand? I'd be fascinated to know how that is worded, considering the multinational ownership of a lot of US media and their coordination with campaigns.

I recall reading that all of the Trump coverage in 2016 amounted to some three billion dollars in free promotion, which leaves me wondering about the ownership of the media outlets which made that coverage and how that would fall under that law you're citing.

The law in question being cited is Part 110, Section 110.20 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Most of the law is phrased around donations, expenditures, or gifts "of any value", though there is also this passage [(h)(2)(i)]:

Participation by foreign nationals in decisions involving election-related activities. A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.

Now, "foreign national" is defined in that section under [(a)(3)] as:

(i) A foreign principal, as defined in 22 U.S.C. 611(b); or

(ii) An individual who is not a citizen of the United States and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20); however,

(iii)Foreign national shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States, or who is a national of the United States as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22).

Which redirects to several other passages of US code. There's a lot to untangle going through all of that to determine what is most relevant to the issue of media/news outlets, but I think it may be the following sections:

U.S.C. 611(d)[/url]]
(d) The term “agent of a foreign principal” does not include any news or press service or association organized under the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or any newspaper, magazine, periodical, or other publication for which there is on file with the United States Postal Service information in compliance with section 3611 [2] of title 39, published in the United States, solely by virtue of any bona fide news or journalistic activities, including the solicitation or acceptance of advertisements, subscriptions, or other compensation therefor, so long as it is at least 80 per centum beneficially owned by, and its officers and directors, if any, are citizens of the United States, and such news or press service or association, newspaper, magazine, periodical, or other publication, is not owned, directed, supervised, controlled, subsidized, or financed, and none of its policies are determined by any foreign principal defined in subsection (b) of this section, or by any agent of a foreign principal required to register under this subchapter;

Whereas the following would be considered "agents of a foreign principal", and thus be illegal:

U.S.C. 611(h,i)[/url]]
(h) The term “publicity agent” includes any person who engages directly or indirectly in the publication or dissemination of oral, visual, graphic, written, or pictorial information or matter of any kind, including publication by means of advertising, books, periodicals, newspapers, lectures, broadcasts, motion pictures, or otherwise;
(i) The term “information-service employee” includes any person who is engaged in furnishing, disseminating, or publishing accounts, descriptions, information, or data with respect to the political, industrial, employment, economic, social, cultural, or other benefits, advantages, facts, or conditions of any country other than the United States or of any government of a foreign country or of a foreign political party or of a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of individuals organized under the laws of, or having its principal place of business in, a foreign country;

[Ziggy Stardust]

You can say that as many times as you want but it ain't gonna make it true. Show me the laws that say you can't. Guess what? You can't, because they don't exist, and the ones that do have so many loopholes that they might as well not exist.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the "don't exist" part. There are plenty of laws on the books covering these issues. In fact, ironically, many of these laws were put on the books by Republicans in 1996 in response to allegations that Bill Clinton's campaign had benefited from Chinese intervention (link)! Beyond laws on the books, there is also court precedent, as in Bluman v. Federal Election Commission (2012), which finds in part that “foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government” (I believe this case is actually specifically with respect to resident aliens in the U.S., but still bears relevance on the larger legal question at hand).

Yes, there are loopholes and vagaries and burdens of proof with regards to any one actually being charged and/or convicted of such violations (here is a decent, factual summary of the issue by a law professor), but that's a different question than your rather bizarre claim that the laws don't exist at all.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Did this get posted yet? Didn't spot it, but it looks like another Cambridge Analytica worker was subpoenaed by Mueller.

A director of the controversial data company Cambridge Analytica, who appeared with Arron Banks at the launch of the Leave.EU campaign, has been subpoenaed by the US investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

A spokesman for Brittany Kaiser, former business development director for Cambridge Analytica – which collapsed after the Observer revealed details of its misuse of Facebook data – confirmed that she had been subpoenaed by special counsel Robert Mueller, and was cooperating fully with his investigation.

In August, Sam Patten, a US political consultant who had worked for Cambridge Analytica on campaigns in the US and abroad, struck a plea deal with Mueller after admitting he had failed to register as a foreign agent for a Ukrainian oligarch.

He became a subject of the special counsel’s inquiry because of work done with Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager, in Ukraine. He had also set up a business with Konstantin Kilimnik, a key figure who Mueller has alleged has ties to Russian intelligence and who is facing charges of obstruction of justice. In a 2017 statement to the Washington Post, Kilimnik denied any connection to intelligence services. Kaiser, however, is the first person connected directly to both the Brexit and Trump campaigns known to have been questioned by Mueller.

[The Romulan Republic]

Before this goes further, do you happen to have this law on hand? I'd be fascinated to know how that is worded, considering the multinational ownership of a lot of US media and their coordination with campaigns.

I recall reading that all of the Trump coverage in 2016 amounted to some three billion dollars in free promotion, which leaves me wondering about the ownership of the media outlets which made that coverage and how that would fall under that law you're citing.

The law in question being cited is Part 110, Section 110.20 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Most of the law is phrased around donations, expenditures, or gifts "of any value", though there is also this passage [(h)(2)(i)]:

Participation by foreign nationals in decisions involving election-related activities. A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.

Now, "foreign national" is defined in that section under [(a)(3)] as:

(i) A foreign principal, as defined in 22 U.S.C. 611(b); or

(ii) An individual who is not a citizen of the United States and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20); however,

(iii)Foreign national shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States, or who is a national of the United States as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22).

Which redirects to several other passages of US code. There's a lot to untangle going through all of that to determine what is most relevant to the issue of media/news outlets, but I think it may be the following sections:

U.S.C. 611(d)[/url]]
(d) The term “agent of a foreign principal” does not include any news or press service or association organized under the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or any newspaper, magazine, periodical, or other publication for which there is on file with the United States Postal Service information in compliance with section 3611 [2] of title 39, published in the United States, solely by virtue of any bona fide news or journalistic activities, including the solicitation or acceptance of advertisements, subscriptions, or other compensation therefor, so long as it is at least 80 per centum beneficially owned by, and its officers and directors, if any, are citizens of the United States, and such news or press service or association, newspaper, magazine, periodical, or other publication, is not owned, directed, supervised, controlled, subsidized, or financed, and none of its policies are determined by any foreign principal defined in subsection (b) of this section, or by any agent of a foreign principal required to register under this subchapter;

Whereas the following would be considered "agents of a foreign principal", and thus be illegal:

U.S.C. 611(h,i)[/url]]
(h) The term “publicity agent” includes any person who engages directly or indirectly in the publication or dissemination of oral, visual, graphic, written, or pictorial information or matter of any kind, including publication by means of advertising, books, periodicals, newspapers, lectures, broadcasts, motion pictures, or otherwise;
(i) The term “information-service employee” includes any person who is engaged in furnishing, disseminating, or publishing accounts, descriptions, information, or data with respect to the political, industrial, employment, economic, social, cultural, or other benefits, advantages, facts, or conditions of any country other than the United States or of any government of a foreign country or of a foreign political party or of a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of individuals organized under the laws of, or having its principal place of business in, a foreign country;

Thank you, and my apologies for not getting around to posting that sooner.

This is probably the main piece of legislation on which any "collusion"-related case will hinge, so it is definitely of high relevance to this thread.

[Gandalf]

Participation by foreign nationals in decisions involving election-related activities. A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.

Can someone please explain the bolded bit to me? Because that seems needlessly vague.

[bilateralrope]

I note that you didn't answer the question "What good is a counter intelligence operation that leaves a Russian agent as president ?"

So, if Trump really is a Russian agent, how do they remove him without going public ?

Or are you saying that they should leave the presidency under russian control because secrecy must be preserved ?

Until they can get said agent behind bars through the court system, it has to be classified due to the fact that Russia is willing to kill anyone that would be considered 'loose ends'

So you're saying that if they can't put Trump in prison, they won't do anything to limit his ability to further Putin's agenda ?

Again, that's putting secrecy above combating Russian interference.

Trump doesn't need to be put in prison to end his usefulness to Putin. He just needs to be removed from the presidency and have his links to Putin made very public. Putting him in prison only serves as a warning to the next person tempted by Russia. Putin killing Trump, or anyone else involved as a loose end has the same effect.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

So you're saying that if they can't put Trump in prison, they won't do anything to limit his ability to further Putin's agenda ?

Again, that's putting secrecy above combating Russian interference.

Trump doesn't need to be put in prison to end his usefulness to Putin. He just needs to be removed from the presidency and have his links to Putin made very public. Putting him in prison only serves as a warning to the next person tempted by Russia. Putin killing Trump, or anyone else involved as a loose end has the same effect.

Here's the thing, if this fails, the GOP will retaliate by gutting/restructuring the FBI and other agencies to sing their tune. Every T has to be crossed, every I has to be dotted, and every piece of evidence has to be safe to ensure that Trump and Co. get behind bars because if they don't cross every T, dot every I, and ensure that the evidence and witnesses are safe, the GOP will gut/restructure these agencies making going after Putin and his cronies impossible.

Even if the Dems somehow keep the agencies from being gutted, the optics on doing this all over again would be so bad that it wouldn't get far before it gets shut down. Optics works both ways sadly enough.