Trump says he would accept dirt on political rivals from foreign governments

[j brown's body]

He denied for years that he colluded and now he says he would do it in a heartbeat. He's a gaslighting con man.

 

[Condor060]

So presidents are now media outlets unto themselves. Got it.

Only a Liberal could possibly come to such an irrational conclusion but we are used to it. .

 

[Moderate Right]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with digging up dirt as long as it's done legally. Legally dig all you want with the Democrats, I don't want a bad apple.

Shouldn't we be thanking Russia for exposing Hillary for the crook she was? I mean they didn't hack girl scout cookie recipes from her. If Democrats had no dirt then they would have had no problem and Hillary would have won. Russia also hacked things Republican but found nothing useful to use against them.

 

[Condor060]

Utter nonsense. Not reporting an offer of something of value from any foreign source is a crime, if you have a secret clearance. You can't be in the Whitehouse without a secret clearance and by now, anyone there should know the law, even Don "the Mensa" tRump.

Do you realize you can register as a foreign agent in the US and legally have dealings outside the US, but it's a crime if you don't register? Ask Manafort why he's in jail?

Just wow. The Foreign Agents Registration Act requires you to be listed if you are representing the interest of foreign powers. IF what you said had any real meaning, no president or government representation could meet, deal, or negotiate with any foreign power. But I did see how you just decided to blow right past the DNC meeting in the Ukraine to provide dirt of Manafort. That was convenient.

 

[Gary]

Lets get two things straight, just for the record. Just tacking on to your post by the way:
1) The DNC, NOT HRC but the DNC hired through US attorneys a US entity GPS Research who hired Richard Steele to produce a dossier on Trump and foreign contacts, most specifically Russian Contacts. In fact initially GPS was hired by a GOP funded group in opposition to Trump. BOTH GROUPS WERE WITHIN THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS to hire somebody for that purpose. Accepting as a contribution opposition research from a foreign national is ILLEGAL. Contracting a foreign national to provide a report or a dossier or information or raw intel....WHATEVER....is not illegal and is in fact LEGAL.
2) Kevin McCarthy's horse dung about what Obama said caught on mike to Russians (i.e. the "i can be more flexible after the election" comment) is entirely....ENTIRELY irrelevant. Obama was already President at the time and was well within his rights as President to discuss with Russian government representatives just such a topic.

Agreed. Let me add again now the tRump family has security clearances, accepting anything of value from a foreigner and not reporting it is a crime. Technically, it could be a meal or even a stick of gum. The law was designed to prevent someone with a security clearance feeling obligated to a foreign nation and other logical reasons. It doesn't prevent someone with a security clearance accepting something of value from a foreigner as long as it's reported.

 

[Gary]

contribution , donation or thing of value... no I am not seeing the connection there. try again.

The connection is the law about someone having a security clearance. Words used in laws get spelled out with definitions and having a security clearance and receiving opposition information is a violation of the law, if not reported.

You can get information from all around the world, even with a security clearance by just going thru the proper channels. Hiring private investigators to get such information is common and they know how to properly obtain information from around the world.

 

[SoCal]

Against the law? What is with you guys? If it's not illegal it's acceptable? You don't ask for much in terms of Presidential behaviour, do ya.
If its not against the law it ought to be. Trump said he'd not only listen to foreign interference in your election, he'd keep it secret from your law enforcement. Whats gonna happen when Trump says he's been told Sanders, for example, diddled childred in Russia?
Academic anyway, innit. Your Attorney-General says he can't be indicted so legality doesnt matter.

Does anyone really believe Don knows more than the FBI director, or anyone mature adult?

It is clearly against the law. Don and his Cult might make excuses, but at this point we know the cult would be happy if he shot a Democrat in the face in Time Square.


"§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or..."

 

[Gary]

the heck are you talking about? where does it say he took Money or valuables from Russia? we are talking about information and you basically bring out the emoluments clause?

no relevance whatsoever as far as I can see. if you know a case with precedence for that I would like to see it.

Look up the law and you'll discover information is considered something of value. Laws are written like this: They use words and have sections defining those words, so what constitutes something of value is part of that definition. Guess what, information can be considered something of value. Opposition research can be very valuable and can cost a million dollars without even producing results. With a security clearance, I'd be reporting a foreigner telling me the details of a SpongeBob SquarePants cartoon.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Only a Liberal could possibly come to such an irrational conclusion but we are used to it. .

Irrational as in "Presidents and other elected officials have security clearances but journalists often do not" ?

 

[Gary]

Thanks for the reminder by the way. The company is actually Fusion GPX Research which I had been shortening to GPX Research.

Hell, all they have to do is go to wiki and look up the Steele Dossier. The article is very long and well footnoted, so they can discover the truth. It takes time to digest all the details.

I call it Fusion, because media usually calls it that. I'm not a fan of using media as a source, but sometimes it's necessary to fully investigate a subject.

 

[jnug]

Just wow. The Foreign Agents Registration Act requires you to be listed if you are representing the interest of foreign powers. IF what you said had any real meaning, no president or government representation could meet, deal, or negotiate with any foreign power. But I did see how you just decided to blow right past the DNC meeting in the Ukraine to provide dirt of Manafort. That was convenient.

Utterly irrelevant.

We have two issues being discussed in the same thread.
One is an offer of something of value made by a covert foreign agent or overt foreign representative personally to a Federal Administrator with a Security Clearance which is a National Security issue.

The other is an offer of a campaign contribution or in-kind contribution made by a foreign national or foreign government representative to a candidate for National Public Office (President, Congressman, Senator) which is a campaign finance issue.

The former REQUIRES that the contact be reported while the acceptance itself might end up not being at issue depending on the circumstances. In the case of the latter, the campaign finance laws make the contribution of anything of value, in-kind or otherwise (like opposition research), the acceptance of same AND the discussion of the offer between the candidate or the campaign and the foreign national or foreign government representative a violation of the campaign finance laws.

One thing Trump has never paid any attention to, that he literally cares about not one bit is that his position as Chief Executive and the responsibilities that come with it are not the same as his position as a candidate for national public office. He utterly disregards his position as chief executive in favor of whatever he thinks suits him as a candidate. In some ways Trump ignores both the statutes governing acceptance of the offer of a gift under National Security statutes and the offer of a campaign contribution to a candidate for National Public Office.

Frankly I have yet to find a law or rule or norm that Trump won't bulldoze if he thinks it suits him. You could convince me that Trump would purposefully not whip his butt coming out of the bathroom if he thought it suited his purposes for the whole room to smell his stink.

 

[SoCal]

For goodness' sake...

...President Trump is just too honest for his own good....

For God's sake...

 

[Gary]

He denied for years that he colluded and now he says he would do it in a heartbeat. He's a gaslighting con man.

He's trying to protect his son as the days tick by and 2020 nears.

Every American who gives a damn about this country needs to do their best in 2020 and remove as many Republicans from office as we can. I have some ideas about how to increase registration and spread information on absentee ballots. Hopefully Rupert Murdoch's fake news business can become a casualty, too. The people in this world who love democracy need to stand up.

 

[Hypothetical]

In this case the emoluments clause has nothing to do with it. You made a general comment not even about "He" (meaning Trump) or Russians and you clearly do not know the definition of an in-kind contribution.

Here is the copy from your post below in bold:
"like... all presidents and presidential candidates don't have people during their campaign to actively attempt to dig up DIRT on their opponents? what world are you from?"

My post is relevant to the drivel you posted. Your reply #96 post is not even relevant to your OWN TOPIC. Tell your handlers you need a new dictionary and a new text on English Grammar. Your's is simply not working for you.

I am clearly talking about the OP article on Trump saying he would take INFORMATION from Russia. it obviously applies about the subject at hand... someone then wrote an legal paragraph about taking money or valuables, which looks suspiciously like the emoluments clause to me, as a REPLY to my statement... then you came and stated that self righteous hogwash. No idea what you are speaking too, other than trying to derail my post without any real data to speak against it with.


the question was to the point whether it is IMMORAL for Trump to take information from another country, as it most certainly is NOT illegal imho. MY reply states the quite obvious, that ALL modern presidents and presidential candidates dig up dirt on opponents, so if it isn't illegal and it WAS authentic information, sure why not take it?

 

[Hypothetical]

Look up the law and you'll discover information is considered something of value. Laws are written like this: They use words and have sections defining those words, so what constitutes something of value is part of that definition. Guess what, information can be considered something of value. Opposition research can be very valuable and can cost a million dollars without even producing results. With a security clearance, I'd be reporting a foreigner telling me the details of a SpongeBob SquarePants cartoon.

i know the law, I want to see cases of precedence. got any?

 

[jnug]

I am clearly talking about the OP article on Trump saying he would take INFORMATION from Russia. it obviously applies about the subject at hand... someone then wrote an legal paragraph about taking money or valuables, which looks suspiciously like the emoluments clause to me, as a REPLY to my statement... then you came and stated that self righteous hogwash. No idea what you are speaking too, other than trying to derail my post without any real data to speak against it with.

You posted drivel and got a reply to your drivel. Not more complicated than that. If you can't stick to the topic of your own post, DON'T POST. If you want to discuss two different posts in the same reply post SAY SO. Frankly I think you are just dancing at this point and what does digging up dirt on opponents have to do with accepting opposition research from a foreign government representative or foreign national. Answer: NOTHING....it has NOTHING to with it.

 

[Hypothetical]

You posted drivel and got a reply to your drivel. Not more complicated than that. If you can't stick to the topic of your own post, DON'T POST. If you want to discuss two different posts in the same reply post SAY SO. Frankly I think you are just dancing at this point.

frankly I don't think it is up to you to critique my posting habits. The ones who replied knew what I was saying, why didn't you? If you can't keep up with however many topics I want to post , then feel free not to reply to my posts.

 

[jnug]

frankly I don't think it is up to you to critique my posting habits. The ones who replied knew what I was saying, why didn't you? If you can't keep up with however many topics I want to post , then feel free not to reply to my posts.

Your post #96 replied to me even quoted my post #95. So sorry, won't wash. I suggest you review your own posts and figure out what the heck you are doing instead of wasting our time with DRIVEL!

 

[jnug]

i know the law, I want to see cases of precedence. got any?

I don't know if the poster you are asking has precedence to offer or not. That is a tough standard since at least in my recollection nobody before Trump has been both STUPID enough and UNSCRUPULOUS enough to test these laws.

 

[Condor060]

Utterly irrelevant.

We have two issues being discussed in the same thread.
One is an offer of something of value made by a covert foreign agent or overt foreign representative personally to a Federal Administrator with a Security Clearance which is a National Security issue.

The other is an offer of a campaign contribution or in-kind contribution made by a foreign national or foreign government representative to a candidate for National Public Office (President, Congressman, Senator) which is a campaign finance issue.

The former REQUIRES that the contact be reported while the acceptance itself might end up not being at issue depending on the circumstances. In the case of the latter, the campaign finance laws make the contribution of anything of value, in-kind or otherwise, the acceptance of same AND the discussion of the offer between the candidate or the campaign and the foreign national or foreign government representative a violation of the campaign finance laws.

One thing Trump has never paid any attention to, that he literally cares about not one bit is that his position as Chief Executive and the responsibilities that come with it are not the same as his position as a candidate for national public office. He utterly disregards his position as chief executive in favor of whatever he thinks suits him as a candidate. In some ways Trump ignores both the statutes governing acceptance of the offer of a gift under National Security statutes and the offer of a campaign contribution to a candidate for National Public Office.

Frankly I have yet to find a law or rule or norm that Trump won't bulldoze if he thinks it suits him. You could convince me that Trump would purposefully not whip his butt coming out of the bathroom if he thought it suited his purposes for the whole room to smell his stink.

I thought we covered all of this when the media and Liberals were screaming Trump committed treason when he met with Putin yet no government law enforcement group has charged him. What it really boils down to is Democrats want to strip away all executive authority from the President (Just because Trump is in office) and make up the rules as we go. How many times and millions of post did we go through on the emoluments clause without a single federal accusation.

Its funny how convenient it has become to overlook millions given the Clinton Foundation by Russia, Bill Clinton receiving 500K for a speech in Russia, all of the Steele Dossier Russian components, the DNC actually sending someone to the Ukraine to get dirt of Manafort, and Obama caught on a hot mic telling Russia once he is reelected he will have more room to work with them.

The hypocrisy is so overwhelming that nobody is going to buy the continued allegations against Trump. If you want to hold Trump accountable you have to start with your own party. Since that hasn't happened its a bit hard to convince others to start the process now.

This is all reaching for the stars just like Trump being a Russian agent and falling on deaf ears.

 

[jnug]

I thought we covered all of this when the media and Liberals were screaming Trump committed treason when he met with Putin yet no government law enforcement group has charged him. What it really boils down to is Democrats want to strip away all executive authority from the President (Just because Trump is in office) and make up the rules as we go. How many times and millions of post did we go through on the emoluments clause without a single federal accusation.

Its funny how convenient it has become to overlook millions given the Clinton Foundation by Russia, Bill Clinton receiving 500K for a speech in Russia, all of the Steele Dossier Russian components, the DNC actually sending someone to the Ukraine to get dirt of Manafort, and Obama caught on a hot mic telling Russia once he is reelected he will have more room to work with them.

The hypocrisy is so overwhelming that nobody is going to buy the continued allegations against Trump. If you want to hold Trump accountable you have to start with your own party. Since that hasn't happened its a bit hard to convince others to start the process now.

This is all reaching for the stars just like Trump being a Russian agent and falling on deaf ears.

Another irrelevant post from nowhereville. I assume you somehow have yourself convinced your post added something to the thread? Thanks for playing but I would check to see if the moderators have another forum titled DebatePropaganda and post over there.

 

[iguanaman]

I am clearly talking about the OP article on Trump saying he would take INFORMATION from Russia. it obviously applies about the subject at hand... someone then wrote an legal paragraph about taking money or valuables, which looks suspiciously like the emoluments clause to me, as a REPLY to my statement... then you came and stated that self righteous hogwash. No idea what you are speaking too, other than trying to derail my post without any real data to speak against it with.


the question was to the point whether it is IMMORAL for Trump to take information from another country, as it most certainly is NOT illegal imho. MY reply states the quite obvious, that ALL modern presidents and presidential candidates dig up dirt on opponents, so if it isn't illegal and it WAS authentic information, sure why not take it?

So it is your opinion that morality is legislated and anything he can get away with is OK for our President? Trump also gave information to Putin to help him in his troll efforts. Do you think that should be legal too? What about his relationship with Putin? Is being beholding to a foreign Govt. OK too?

 

[Condor060]

Irrational as in "Presidents and other elected officials have security clearances but journalists often do not" ?

Irrational as in Presidents are now media outlets as what was covered in the original post.

 

[Condor060]

Another irrelevant post from nowhereville. I assume you somehow have yourself convinced your post added something to the thread? Thanks for playing but I would check to see if the moderators have another forum titled DebatePropaganda and post over there.

Funny how every time a Liberal is caught in another lie or hypocrisy pertaining to the subject at hand, it instantly becomes irrelevant information but thats how Liberals work. No rear view mirrors and the only thing you can depend on from Liberals is their ability to leap frog from one support item to another depending on who they hate today.

No wonder Biden is under fire for so much flip flopping. Its the Liberal persona and the reason they have no credibility.

 

[Gary]

Shouldn't we be thanking Russia for exposing Hillary for the crook she was? I mean they didn't hack girl scout cookie recipes from her. If Democrats had no dirt then they would have had no problem and Hillary would have won. Russia also hacked things Republican but found nothing useful to use against them.

Hillary is a crook for being too dumb to use only proper servers to transfer information later discovered to be secret. Important secret things have big labels on them to prevent improper transfer. I haven't found such a label on any email sent by Clinton, have you? Information can become classified when it's written or much later.

I don't know if the so-called 30k missing emails had classified information on them, except the emails discovered 11 days before the election and I haven't see a copy of them yet. It wouldn't surprise me if FBI Director James Comey was played, I'm not a big fan of coincidence. I can relate to his background, he was a Chemistry and Religions major to get his degree and I was a Chemistry major who took a bunch of philosophy courses including religion. Such a background can make a very good investigator, but a highly moral person like Comey can be manipulated, in fact, anyone can. You just have to study the person well enough to know how they will react and manipulate them. I'm of the opinion, Comey should have waiting until after the election before making a Clinton announcement, but I'm many years older than Comey and stopped being a Republican when Nixon was pardoned. Comey claims he had two choices and I believe he had three, but I'll accept his word that his decision of morality based for now. I have no proof otherwise.

Comey was a Republican, but that didn't stop Obama nominating him to head the FBI. Don "the Mensa" tRump believes he can take a life long Republican and get them involved in crimes like taking it easy on Flynn and play Apprentice with them if they don't bow down to his desires. It doesn't work that way in government.