Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

Generally it’s a distinction based on subject matter and sometimes whether the work is legal or not.  

Like saying “I’m a pitcher, look at that fastball location!”

”No, Larry, you’re a violent criminal. You didn’t throw a baseball at a catcher, you threw a rock at your neighbor’s face.”

Thanks, I like this comparison.  I genuinely want to understand the distinctions on what makes it a rock instead of a baseball.  I have a thousand questions,  maybe you can help me with a few?

1- I'm assuming it's generally illegal to accept campaign contributions from foreign sources?

2- I'm assuming that stealing data from Facebook and using bots on the Facebook platform is against Facebook terms of service, but, is it also illegal?

3- The term used "influence the election" is exactly what an election campaign tries to do; get enough voters convinced to vote for them so that the outcome of an election is influenced.  I'm assuming all campaigns use what they can within the bounds of what is legal for items #1 and #2?

4- I know I see tv commercials endorsed and un-endorsed by certain campaigns so I assume it is legal for other political organizations to campaign and try to influence the outcomes of elections?  It is just foreign political organizations that make it illegal?

TIA

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 116.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • SaintsInDome2006

    10138

  • Henry Ford

    5502

  • Sinn Fein

    3363

  • packersfan

    2921

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I actually don't.  And I've made my feelings on that clear for many, many months.  I don't believe there should be any requirement for investigators to like the people they're investigating.  I don't

The defense being put forth by Trump Levin Dershowitz and our own house Gary Johnson supporters is that a candidate can give unlimited funds to his own campaign.  Therefore Trump can pay off the women

My whole office is almost literally rolling on the floor laughing.  The managing partner of my firm just had to use an inhaler to breathe.

32 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Thanks, I like this comparison.  I genuinely want to understand the distinctions on what makes it a rock instead of a baseball.  I have a thousand questions,  maybe you can help me with a few?

1- I'm assuming it's generally illegal to accept campaign contributions from foreign sources?

2- I'm assuming that stealing data from Facebook and using bots on the Facebook platform is against Facebook terms of service, but, is it also illegal?

3- The term used "influence the election" is exactly what an election campaign tries to do; get enough voters convinced to vote for them so that the outcome of an election is influenced.  I'm assuming all campaigns use what they can within the bounds of what is legal for items #1 and #2?

4- I know I see tv commercials endorsed and un-endorsed by certain campaigns so I assume it is legal for other political organizations to campaign and try to influence the outcomes of elections?  It is just foreign political organizations that make it illegal?

TIA

1. Yes.

2. Violating the terms of service of a website wouldn't be a crime, but doing anything to circumvent technical barriers might be - for instance, changing the ip address to get around Facebook locking out accounts from certain ip addresses.  Other crimes may be pertinent, especially those surrounding the actions (especially the financial stuff mentioned in 1. and the indictments.)

3. I think most successful federal campaigns do what they can within the bounds of what is legal, or at least that they can argue is legal.

4. There are actually a bunch of things and I'm not qualified to say what all of them are.  Campaign ads have to say who's making them.  These didn't.  Foreign help isn't generally legal.  These were foreign aid to campaigns.  Even if they were PACs, and U.S. money, the Trump campaign couldn't coordinate with them.  Trump's campaign people kept retweeting and sharing many of these things as well as possibly up-front coordinating actions, though time will tell on that.  Facebook itself may have done illegal things in some states/countries even allowing these entities to have the kind of access they did to user data.  There are a host of important campaign laws that the Trump campaign clearly did not know or did not care about throughout the process - no veteran politician would ever have been caught up in any of this. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

no veteran politician would ever have been caught up in any of this

With the possible exception of Paul Manafort :P 

Edited by msommer
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

1. Yes.

2. Violating the terms of service of a website wouldn't be a crime, but doing anything to circumvent technical barriers might be - for instance, changing the ip address to get around Facebook locking out accounts from certain ip addresses.  Other crimes may be pertinent, especially those surrounding the actions (especially the financial stuff mentioned in 1. and the indictments.)

3. I think most successful federal campaigns do what they can within the bounds of what is legal, or at least that they can argue is legal.

4. There are actually a bunch of things and I'm not qualified to say what all of them are.  Campaign ads have to say who's making them.  These didn't.  Foreign help isn't generally legal.  These were foreign aid to campaigns.  Even if they were PACs, and U.S. money, the Trump campaign couldn't coordinate with them.  Trump's campaign people kept retweeting and sharing many of these things as well as possibly up-front coordinating actions, though time will tell on that.  Facebook itself may have done illegal things in some states/countries even allowing these entities to have the kind of access they did to user data.  There are a host of important campaign laws that the Trump campaign clearly did not know or did not care about throughout the process - no veteran politician would ever have been caught up in any of this. 

Thanks!   

So being a foreign interest has a lot to do with a lot of these which makes sense to me.  Then again foreign interests aren't governed by our laws so the only thing that would matter is if the campaign or Facebook itself (which are in the US and governed by our laws) had any involvement.  Is that right?  Of course we could always take international action against the foreign interest for doing things we do not like.

The internet stuff and technical barriers is still a gray area for me.  Circumventing technical barriers is illegal, specifically changing IP addresses?  I have a hard time understanding that unless it's specifically to gain information for something else that is illegal.  Because VPNs are used all the time for all kinds of reasons.  For example I can understand why a foreign interest circumventing FB to get personal information to influence an election might be illegal, because of the foreign influence thing.  Are you saying that when I circumvent the NFL Sunday Ticket by changing my IP address to Brazil so I can get it at third of the price that they offer it for here in America I am violating some sort of US technical barrier law (hypothetically of course)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mario Kart said:

Do you find all of the Russian ties or close ties to Russia is at all concerning? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

In a more normal climate, my answer might be yes.  I think there's good reason to be troubled by his affection for strongmen types, more so with Israel and Saudi Arabia.  But I think the DNC openly rigging elections is a much more dangerous, direct threat to democratic norms than Russia could ever dream of.  

In this climate, which is an absolute McCarthyism, no, I'm not going along with this.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

.But I think the DNC openly rigging elections is a much more dangerous

This is a flat out lie. Stop lying.

The remainder was collaborating with and enabling those seeking to spread lies like this and worse yet that the Russians are a lesser concern. 

 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

In a more normal climate, my answer might be yes.  I think there's good reason to be troubled by his affection for strongmen types, more so with Israel and Saudi Arabia.  But I think the DNC openly rigging elections is a much more dangerous, direct threat to democratic norms than Russia could ever dream of.  

In this climate, which is an absolute McCarthyism, no, I'm not going along with this.  

This is an ugly, scary and inaccurate post. You couldn't be doing Vlad's disruption work any better if you were on the payroll.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Koya said:

This is a flat out lie. Stop lying.

The remainder was collaborating with and enabling those seeking to spread lies like this and worse yet that the Russians are a lesser concern. 

No it isn't.  They conspired against Sanders and argued their right to do so in court.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ren hoek said:

No it isn't.  They conspired against Sanders and argued their right to do so in court.  

Is that what the Russian bots told you?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ren hoek said:

No it isn't.  They conspired against Sanders and argued their right to do so in court.  

While I don't like what the DNC did to Sanders, you know they're not even required to have a primary right?  They are free to nominate who ever they choose.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

In a more normal climate, my answer might be yes.  I think there's good reason to be troubled by his affection for strongmen types, more so with Israel and Saudi Arabia.  But I think the DNC openly rigging elections is a much more dangerous, direct threat to democratic norms than Russia could ever dream of.  

In this climate, which is an absolute McCarthyism, no, I'm not going along with this.  

https://www.reddit.com/r/cringe/

That is what I did when I read your post. Take no offense to the following but to make attempt to justify what you did above is scary. I hope, at some point soon, you see/realize the error of your ways because much of what I have seen you, and others, write, could very well be placed in Nuremberg. The impact Russia had, and is still having, in our country is also scary. Yet, many believe it either isn't happening or find a way to justify it, like above, is more frightening than anything I can think of.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

In a more normal climate, my answer might be yes.  I think there's good reason to be troubled by his affection for strongmen types, more so with Israel and Saudi Arabia.  But I think the DNC openly rigging elections is a much more dangerous, direct threat to democratic norms than Russia could ever dream of.  

In this climate, which is an absolute McCarthyism, no, I'm not going along with this.  

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them."

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

It's what the court filing tells us.  

You mean the joint fundraising agreement?   What did the court filing actually tell you?  Or are you relying on summaries?  

Do you understand how the motion to dismiss worked?  Are you aware that you need to assume all facts in the complaint are true, and still be able to win on the law?  It doesn't actually mean the allegations are accurate.

Edited by -fish-
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TobiasFunke said:

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them."

Oh, sorry.  The DNC election rigging thing actually happened.  The source and methods of the leaks are still unproven.  The IRA social media ads are a joke and shouldn't have been taken seriously in the first place.  I wouldn't try to excuse the hack if I believed they actually did it (although I would still find much of the anger misplaced).  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Oh, sorry.  The DNC election rigging thing actually happened.  The source and methods of the leaks are still unproven.  The IRA social media ads are a joke and shouldn't have been taken seriously in the first place.  I wouldn't try to excuse the hack if I believed they actually did it (although I would still find much of the anger misplaced).  

You said the DNC election rigging was a bigger threat "than anything the Russians could ever dream of."  Not a bigger threat than your own literally impossible conclusions (the conspiracy would be so massive and would rely on the anonymity of so many people that it would fall apart immediately) about what they actually did.

So let's lower the bar from "anything the Russians could ever dream of" to the Occam's Razor explanation for the Trump team's constant lies about Russian contacts and the contacts themselves and efforts to hinder and discredit the investigation that are so extreme that they open up new avenues of criminal liability based on obstruction of justice and witness tampering.  And let's pretend the DNC election rigging was a real thing and not just some random CNN personality forwarding obvious debate questions to a woman who would have been prepared for them anyway.

Do you think a political party "rigging" its own elections- which it isn't even required by law to have, they could have Donna Brazile choose the candidate in a televised rose ceremony if they want- is a much more dangerous, direct threat to our democratic norms than the Occam's Razor explanation for Trump's bizarre behavior w/r/t Russia?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, -fish- said:

You mean the joint fundraising agreement?   What did the court filing actually tell you?  Or are you relying on summaries?  

Do you understand how the motion to dismiss worked?  Are you aware that you need to assume all facts in the complaint are true, and still be able to win on the law?  It doesn't actually mean the allegations are accurate.

https://medium.com/theyoungturks/dnc-we-can-legally-choose-candidate-over-cigars-in-back-room-e3026730e252

http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/042517cw2.pdf

"But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standardbearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have -- and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ren hoek said:

https://medium.com/theyoungturks/dnc-we-can-legally-choose-candidate-over-cigars-in-back-room-e3026730e252

http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/042517cw2.pdf

"But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standardbearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have -- and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions."

Where's the evidence of election rigging here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

You said the DNC election rigging was a bigger threat "than anything the Russians could ever dream of."  Not a bigger threat than your own literally impossible conclusions (the conspiracy would be so massive and would rely on the anonymity of so many people that it would fall apart immediately) about what they actually did.

So let's lower the bar from "anything the Russians could ever dream of" to the Occam's Razor explanation for the Trump team's constant lies about Russian contacts and the contacts themselves and efforts to hinder and discredit the investigation that are so extreme that they open up new avenues of criminal liability based on obstruction of justice and witness tampering.  And let's pretend the DNC election rigging was a real thing and not just some random CNN personality forwarding obvious debate questions to a woman who would have been prepared for them anyway.

Do you think a political party "rigging" its own elections- which it isn't even required by law to have, they could have Donna Brazile choose the candidate in a televised rose ceremony if they want- is a much more dangerous, direct threat to our democratic norms than the Occam's Razor explanation for Trump's bizarre behavior w/r/t Russia?

Don't get too deep - he's forwarding (again), repeated lies and known propaganda.  Over and over.  He's been disproven, with facts, time and time again. His comments are not properly sourced nor backed up to hold up to any scrutiny. Over and over.

At some point, let's maybe just point out the lies and collaboration tactics including propaganda so folks know, and move on.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tonydead said:

Thanks!   

So being a foreign interest has a lot to do with a lot of these which makes sense to me.  Then again foreign interests aren't governed by our laws so the only thing that would matter is if the campaign or Facebook itself (which are in the US and governed by our laws) had any involvement.  Is that right?  Of course we could always take international action against the foreign interest for doing things we do not like.

The internet stuff and technical barriers is still a gray area for me.  Circumventing technical barriers is illegal, specifically changing IP addresses?  I have a hard time understanding that unless it's specifically to gain information for something else that is illegal.  Because VPNs are used all the time for all kinds of reasons.  For example I can understand why a foreign interest circumventing FB to get personal information to influence an election might be illegal, because of the foreign influence thing.  Are you saying that when I circumvent the NFL Sunday Ticket by changing my IP address to Brazil so I can get it at third of the price that they offer it for here in America I am violating some sort of US technical barrier law (hypothetically of course)?

That's not entirely true.  When operating on U.S. soil they are absolutely governed by our laws.  In some other circumstances as well.

Circumventing IP addresses can be illegal if, for instance, you're gaining access to a system by inducing the system to allow you in using fraud.  And yes, hypothetically, by using an IP address to access a system that allows you to pay less money for a product you may be committing actionable fraud, depending on the statutes and agreements involved.  Like using your grandmother's ID to get a senior citizens' discount.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

Oh, sorry.  The DNC election rigging thing actually happened.  The source and methods of the leaks are still unproven.  The IRA social media ads are a joke and shouldn't have been taken seriously in the first place.  I wouldn't try to excuse the hack if I believed they actually did it (although I would still find much of the anger misplaced).  

You're funny sometimes.  Not like "ha-ha" funny, but still.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Hilts said:

Throw it on the pile with the rest of the ethical violations that will be ignored. 

:goodposting: How long into the administration was it when the head of the Office for Government Ethics resigned, saying the Trump White House had no interest in being ethical?  Less than a year in, right?

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

:lmao::lmao:

 

Judge denies Manafort's request to stay put:

 

Manafort’s attorneys expressed concerns later Tuesday that moving him from Northern Neck Regional Jail to Alexandria would put their client’s safety in jeopardy. Ellis’ response? Don’t worry, they know how to handle terrorists (foreign and domestic), traitors and spies

 

oops....

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sinn Fein said:

:lmao::lmao:

 

Judge denies Manafort's request to stay put:

 

Manafort’s attorneys expressed concerns later Tuesday that moving him from Northern Neck Regional Jail to Alexandria would put their client’s safety in jeopardy. Ellis’ response? Don’t worry, they know how to handle terrorists (foreign and domestic), traitors and spies

 

oops....

This is the problem with playing games with the judge.

Not only is the judge usually better at it, she gets to make up the rules.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Henry Ford said:

This is the problem with playing games with the judge.

Not only is the judge usually better at it, she gets to make up the rules.

This was Elliot, who had been a little more sympathetic to Manafort's earlier arguments about the reach of the Special Counsel.

 

He added this little zinger

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

:lmao::lmao:

 

Judge denies Manafort's request to stay put:

 

Manafort’s attorneys expressed concerns later Tuesday that moving him from Northern Neck Regional Jail to Alexandria would put their client’s safety in jeopardy. Ellis’ response? Don’t worry, they know how to handle terrorists (foreign and domestic), traitors and spies

 

oops....

This is the judge Trumpites believed would magically vindicate Manafort.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been spending a lot of time thinking how the "No puppet, you're the puppet!" line applied to Green Day's American Idiot basically perfectly encapsulates the current problems with this country.  

 

Kind of sad, really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I've been spending a lot of time thinking how the "No puppet, you're the puppet!" line applied to Green Day's American Idiot basically perfectly encapsulates the current problems with this country.  

 

Kind of sad, really.

Protesters in the UK organized a download campaign of American Idiot so it would chart again in time for Trump’s visit.

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I've been spending a lot of time thinking how the "No puppet, you're the puppet!" line applied to Green Day's American Idiot basically perfectly encapsulates the current problems with this country.  

 

Kind of sad, really.

Sieg Heil to the president Gasman?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Yes. I've only got experience on the state level, so it might be a little different. But when you want to prosecute a guy in state court and he's got some sort of federal hold or is in federal custody, you have to do a writ. That's even true if he's being held in a local jail, which happens literally all the time. Example: you could have Defendant A in Big City Jail being prosecuted by Big City prosecutors. Even if Big City Jail is 10 feet away from the courthouse, you cannot bring him to court without this sort of writ.

It looks like this is just the federal version of that. Is the jail Manafort got moved to a state or city jail? If so, that totally makes sense that the federal marshals would have to have a writ to move him from the state facility. This writ is a true nothingburger.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rirruto said:

Yes. I've only got experience on the state level, so it might be a little different. But when you want to prosecute a guy in state court and he's got some sort of federal hold or is in federal custody, you have to do a writ. That's even true if he's being held in a local jail, which happens literally all the time. Example: you could have Defendant A in Big City Jail being prosecuted by Big City prosecutors. Even if Big City Jail is 10 feet away from the courthouse, you cannot bring him to court without this sort of writ.

It looks like this is just the federal version of that. Is the jail Manafort got moved to a state or city jail? If so, that totally makes sense that the federal marshals would have to have a writ to move him from the state facility. This writ is a true nothingburger.

I’m on the fence.  This is an inmate in a federal facility within the jurisdiction of EDVa being transferred to another federal facility within the jurisdiction of EDVa for trial at EDVa.   Seems to me this has a bit of a “you will appear or we will try you in absentia” vibe. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...