[W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

[TU Curmudgeon]

Why does it matter where damaging info comes from? I dont understand how damaging info is magically different because it comes from a foreign rather than domestic source.

It doesn't matter one little bit WHERE the damaging information COMES FROM.

What does matter is HOW the information is USED.

As part of an investigation by a properly constituted and official investigative agency to determine whether any laws have been reached, it would be quite proper to use the information REGARDLESS of source.

As part of a political campaign (and especially if the information had NOT been verified by a properly constituted and official investigative agency) it would be improper to use the information if it came from a source which was legally prohibited from providing it and/or used by an individual/organization that was legally prohibited from receiving it.

Isnt the truth the most important thing? As long as the damaging info is truth shouldnt we want that info?

And, exactly how is "the truth of the information" to be determined if it is NOT fully investigated prior to being used?

The liberals sure were salivating over the "Russian Collusion" myth for the last few years, well, that info was from a foreign source obviously.

The information was provided by an American company to American political campaigns/organizations (originally the Republicans who were in opposition to Mr. Trump's nomination and later to Democrats who were opposed to Mr. Trump's election). The existing laws do not prohibit American companies from obtaining information from non-Americans. Possibly this is a defect, or possibly this is because such a prohibition would be both silly and self-defeating.

 

[dixon01767]

It appears that you haven't actually been doing a whole lot of "reading for content" because "What we should do is conclude that any information about Russia, that "comes from Russia", or that comes from a Russian, or that involves a Russian in any way, THAT IS RECEIVED BY A DEMOCRAT is completely false, but accept uncritically anything that a Republican says they have been told REGARDLESS of whether there is any evidence to support it." is EXACTLY the implied position of Mr. Trump's supporters.

Nope. Why not take a shot at responding to what I actually post.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Nope. Why not take a shot at responding to what I actually post.

Strangely enough, that is exactly what I did do.

Just because you don't like the response does NOT mean that it is a response to what you actually posted.

 

[dixon01767]

Strangely enough, that is exactly what I did do.
.

Precisely the opposite. Dashing after strawmen of your own creation to avoid what Ive actually stated.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Precisely the opposite. Dashing after strawmen of your own creation to avoid what Ive actually stated.

Sorry, don't play the

"Did too."

"Did not."

"Did too."

"Did not."

"Did too."

"Did not."

"Did too."

"Did not."
​

game.

 

[Ouroboros]

They dont need a smoking gun with Don Jrs confession

When a court rules that he has confessed, and that his words can and will be held against him, THAT might be a smoking gun. Otherwise, "Don Jr. should be convicted" means as much as "Hillary should have won."

 

[Ouroboros]

It would (to me) actually seem that the "point(s)" of this thread are:

1. the Democrats DID NOT "receive information from foreign sources" at all (they received the information fromn FusionGPS which is an American company [and had no part in any dealings that FusionGPS had with any foreign sources]);
2. the Democrats DID turn the material that they did receive over to the appropriate investigative agencies and DID NOT use the material that they did receive for political campaign purposes;
3. it is contrary to the laws of the United States of America for ANYONE to (and for the purpose of a conviction this must be KNOWINGLY) receive ANY form of assistance from ANY "foreigner" (be it a government or an individual) in an American election campaign; and
4. Mr. Trump has said that he would "consider" the "possibility" of turning any material which he thought might be politically useful and which he knowingly received directly from a foreign government, over to an American investigative agency and HAS NOT ruled out using that material in support of the election or re-election of some person whom he favours.

You should note that it would be perfectly legal for an American campaign organization (let's say the "Demlican/Republocrat Party") to hire "John Doe (from Biloxi)" to do "campaign research" and to present a "report" based on that "campaign research" and for that "John Doe (from Biloxi)" to hire "Poison Dwarf Enterprises INC" (a Canadian company) to do the actual research and for "PDI INC" to then use its contacts within the government of the ROK to obtain information that would be included in the "research report" that it delivered to "John Doe (from Biloxi)" and for "John Doe (from Biloxi)" to then pass that information (without reference to the ROK) on to the "Demlican/Republocrat Party" and for the "Demlican/Republocrat Party" to use that information in its campaign to oust the "Republocrat/Demlican Party" from power (well, maybe not "prefectly" but certainly legal enough to [likely] avoid a conviction).

On the other hand, I do recognize the level of logical validity of

"It is perfectly OK for us to do the illegal thing that you did because you did it first."
​

(which should be completely obvious to anyone that has more active intelligence than three day old road kill).

Where

"It is perfectly OK for us to do this illegal thing because you did something that we say sort of resembles it - but actually isn't - first."
​

falls in relation to the level of logical validity of "It is perfectly OK for us to do the illegal thing that you did because you did it first." I leave for you to determine.

I stopped reading at the point where you credited the oppo research to an American company 'cause it was so funny, I feared the rest of the post would fail to come up to that level of absurdity.

 

[Ouroboros]

Strangely enough, that is EXACTLY how the laws of the United States of America work.

Which brings the question back to whether the particular law permitting oppo research to be contributed by foreign sources is not a misbegotten piece of rubbish.

 

[Ouroboros]

Curmudgeon saith:

The issue is NOT whether or not the President receives information, qua "President", and deals with it, qua "President", but rather the issue is whether the President receives information, in ANY capacity, and deals with it qua "Candidate".

The first is (as near as I can tell) 100% legal. The second would be (as near as I can tell) illegal according to the actual laws of the United States of America.

The entire thread begins with Trump talking about how he, as President, would deal with information given to him in his capacity as President. To what incident re: "Candidate information" are you referring?

 

[Ouroboros]

Indeed, whether or not a law SHOULD exist is always an ongoing concern. That, however, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a law DOES exist. Once the law DOES exist, then "The Rule of Law", requires that it be obeyed - which does NOT mean that those who feel that the law SHOULD NOT exist cannot continue to work to have the law repealed (as indeed they, if they are honest, should do), nor does the belief that the law SHOULD NOT exist exempt those who believe that from complying from that law until such time as they manage to have the law repealed (and from being penalized for any non-compliance with the law even if they think that the law - for "moral" reasons - should not exist).



Now that's a blinding flash of the obvious.



Yep, in every society where "All animals are equal" you are going to find that, in fact, "some animals are more equal than others".



True, and he MIGHT not too.

I do, however, suspect that the "end game" would likely be some variation on "The Nixon Gambit" wherein Mr. Trump was "persuaded" to "go quietly into the night" (in return for some "appropriate" arrangement that precluded him paying a huge find and spending a substantial period in jail) in order to "preserve the dignity and repute of the Presidency".

Whether or not that end game would result in Mr. Trump's supporters (or his detractors for that matter) heaving a huge sigh of relief and then rejoining the American political dialogue on a more cooperative basis, or whether it would result in a widening of the rift between the American political factions and a hardening of the resistance to ANY cooperation between "The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party" and "The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party", neither you nor I can know (and any prediction based on the fact that the battle lines have been hardening for the past 20 years is simply a guess).

You predictably ignored my point that penalties are often mutable or negotiable, and this is the reason people will risk breaking laws, or at least skirting the boundaries of what is legal. I assume that all of your rhetoric is supposed to prove something about Trump's character in that he hypothesized about skirting such a legal boundary as President. Well, guess what? A lot of Trump supporters (of which I'm not one, being centrist) already knew that he has at best a fuzzy notion of what is legal. He hires people to tell him what's legal, and makes poor choices at times, which is not strictly speaking illegal.

I'm amazed that you've devoted so much space to your imaginary "gotcha," when what we're dealing with a Prez discussing a purely hypothetical situation.

And who exactly do you think has said he should be "exempt" from the law? I haven't seen anyone on the thread make that statement.

 

[Ouroboros]

Really?

You do know what "non-sequitur" means, don't you?

HINT - It does NOT mean "I didn't want to hear that.".

I was talking about the allegation that someone in the FBI may have attempted an October surprise, and you responded with some sort of irrelevance about gerrymandering and voter suppression.

Far be it from me to tell America to run its elections. After all, both gerrymandering and voter suppression are accepted parts of the American system of running elections and if that is how Americans want to run "free, fair, open, and honest elections" that IS their own choice, isn't it? I suppose that the next, logical, step is to provide judicial approval for counting ALL of the ballots in the ballot boxes REGARDLESS of how they got there.

The one who didn't want to hear something? He's looking at you in your mirror.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nope. Why not take a shot at responding to what I actually post.

Since TU can respond to a post about an October surprise with something about gerrymandering, I wouldn't get my hopes up.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I stopped reading at the point where you credited the oppo research to an American company 'cause it was so funny, I feared the rest of the post would fail to come up to that level of absurdity.

FusionGPS _is_ an American company.

Thank you for not bothering to play.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Which brings the question back to whether the particular law permitting oppo research to be contributed by foreign sources is not a misbegotten piece of rubbish.

Admittedly that is a very good point.

However, what else could you expect from any country's government where the legislators don't bother to actually read (or understand) the legislation that they vote to pass?

PS - The US isn't the ONLY country where that happens. However it is the only country that I know of (there may be more and I'd appreciate verifiable links to sources that identify them using actual data [as opposed to simply expressing an opinion]) where it happens routinely AND the "legislators" are not actually told how to vote (with "serious adverse consequences" frequently descending on those who don't cast their votes as directed).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Curmudgeon saith:

The entire thread begins with Trump talking about how he, as President, would deal with information given to him in his capacity as President. To what incident re: "Candidate information" are you referring?

Considering that the originally linked to article actually recorded the actual question actually asked as

Your campaign this time around, if foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on opponents, should they accept it or should they call the FBI? (emphasis added)
[SOURCE]
​

your point is somewhat "slightly" less than sound since "Presidents" (even if running for re-election) simply are while "Candidates" (even Presidents running for re-election) have campaigns.

But, a nice try at bafflegab (and the reliance on misquoting a link in a post over 1,500 posts previously [under the assumption {generally sound} that people will simply be too slothful to actually go back and check to see if your statement is actually correct] is excellent Internet "debate" technique).

Except, when it blows up in your face.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You predictably ignored my point that penalties are often mutable or negotiable,

Exactly how does "Yep, in every society where "All animals are equal" you are going to find that, in fact, "some animals are more equal than others"." ignore your point?

...and this is the reason people will risk breaking laws, or at least skirting the boundaries of what is legal.

Actually, the research (unless it has changed from when I was studying the point over 30 years ago) show that "penalties" have a minimal effect on deterrence - since most malefactors never actually believe that they will get caught.

I assume that all of your rhetoric is supposed to prove something about Trump's character in that he hypothesized about skirting such a legal boundary as President.

You have a right to make any assumptions that you want. That, however, doesn't mean that they will be correct.

Well, guess what? A lot of Trump supporters (of which I'm not one, being centrist) already knew that he has at best a fuzzy notion of what is legal. He hires people to tell him what's legal, and makes poor choices at times, which is not strictly speaking illegal.

And the fact that a significant portion of the electorate chose to vote in favour of a person whom they already knew had scant regard for the law tells you - what - about the American polity?

I'm amazed that you've devoted so much space to your imaginary "gotcha," when what we're dealing with a Prez discussing a purely hypothetical situation.

Quite right, there has never in the entire history of the United States of America been a single incidence of any foreigners attempting to inter-meddle in an American political campaign by influencing candidates or providing the candidates with information. Well, except for Obama and Clinton, of course.

And who exactly do you think has said he should be "exempt" from the law? I haven't seen anyone on the thread make that statement.

Mr. Trump doesn't post here under his own name.

 

[Ouroboros]

FusionGPS _is_ an American company.

Thank you for not bothering to play.

Thank you for never learning to apply reason.

Your statement is funny because the "American company" didn't do its own research, but simply paid for info from foreign sources.

Thus, since the sources of the info are foreign, Fusion's American status makes no more difference than whether or not Trump's business holdings are American.

 

[Ouroboros]

Admittedly that is a very good point.

However, what else could you expect from any country's government where the legislators don't bother to actually read (or understand) the legislation that they vote to pass?

PS - The US isn't the ONLY country where that happens. However it is the only country that I know of (there may be more and I'd appreciate verifiable links to sources that identify them using actual data [as opposed to simply expressing an opinion]) where it happens routinely AND the "legislators" are not actually told how to vote (with "serious adverse consequences" frequently descending on those who don't cast their votes as directed).

Not interested in your irrelevant and no doubt inaccurate soapbox.

 

[Ouroboros]

Considering that the originally linked to article actually recorded the actual question actually asked as

Your campaign this time around, if foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on opponents, should they accept it or should they call the FBI? (emphasis added)
[SOURCE]
​

your point is somewhat "slightly" less than sound since "Presidents" (even if running for re-election) simply are while "Candidates" (even Presidents running for re-election) have campaigns.

But, a nice try at bafflegab (and the reliance on misquoting a link in a post over 1,500 posts previously [under the assumption {generally sound} that people will simply be too slothful to actually go back and check to see if your statement is actually correct] is excellent Internet "debate" technique).

Except, when it blows up in your face.

That's a masterfully ridiculous point. If Trump is a current President campaigning for re-election, he does not lose his status as President simply because he is also campaigning. Any information given to him as President is contextualized by the fact that he is President when he is offered such a "gift" (assuming that the info can even be legally defined as a "gift")

I'm sure there are liberal lawyers who would like to argue the logic-chopping point you're making, but they too would be wrong.

 

[Ouroboros]

Exactly how does "Yep, in every society where "All animals are equal" you are going to find that, in fact, "some animals are more equal than others"." ignore your point?



Actually, the research (unless it has changed from when I was studying the point over 30 years ago) show that "penalties" have a minimal effect on deterrence - since most malefactors never actually believe that they will get caught.



You have a right to make any assumptions that you want. That, however, doesn't mean that they will be correct.



And the fact that a significant portion of the electorate chose to vote in favour of a person whom they already knew had scant regard for the law tells you - what - about the American polity?



Quite right, there has never in the entire history of the United States of America been a single incidence of any foreigners attempting to inter-meddle in an American political campaign by influencing candidates or providing the candidates with information. Well, except for Obama and Clinton, of course.



Mr. Trump doesn't post here under his own name.

(1) Posting twaddle about animals as part of some lame metaphor is, in your words, no more than "bafflegab."

(2) You are the one who tiresomely reiterates that lawbreakers must pay the penalty, and your only response to the observation that they frequently commit crimes anyway is that they just don't believe they'll be caught. That's a very convenient bit of circular logic, since it assumes that the "malefactors" are unable to see what's going on around them-- that is, the whole gamut of legal methods to circumvent penalties-- and that they're just pig-ignorant of the unerring Hand of Justice. Thanks, but if I want to listen to an episode of DRAGNET I'll tune in Youtube.

(3) You have the right to challenge any alleged assumption with logic. I'm still waiting for a logical reply to the October surprise.

(4) Ah, I get it: assumptions about the nature of the polity are OK, as long as they're defamatory toward Trump. That's why no logic is necessary.

(5) Still not a justification for your incredible passion for an imaginary "gotcha."

(6) So you're admitting that no one on this thread, at least, has argued that Trump should be "exempt" from any crimes he commits?
I certainly hope that the corollary is that he should only be found guilty if there is a preponderance of real evidence.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Thank you for never learning to apply reason.

Your statement is funny because the "American company" didn't do its own research, but simply paid for info from foreign sources.

Thus, since the sources of the info are foreign, Fusion's American status makes no more difference than whether or not Trump's business holdings are American.

Strangely enough, at law, the fact that FusionGPS is an American company makes a whole lot of difference.

You see, there is no law against an American company buying information from any source whatsoever (unless that source happens to be an American who does not have the legal right to sell the information [in which case it IS illegal for the American company to buy it]).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That's a masterfully ridiculous point. If Trump is a current President campaigning for re-election, he does not lose his status as President simply because he is also campaigning.

True, but he does GAIN the status of "candidate" and, as such, is bound by the same laws as any other "candidate".

Any information given to him as President is contextualized by the fact that he is President when he is offered such a "gift" (assuming that the info can even be legally defined as a "gift")

True, and as long as he does not use the information in his capacity as "candidate" there is no problem whatsoever.

I'm sure there are liberal lawyers who would like to argue the logic-chopping point you're making, but they too would be wrong.

Obviously the concept of "double hatted" is totally unfamiliar to you.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

(1) Posting twaddle about animals as part of some lame metaphor is, in your words, no more than "bafflegab."

Please refer to George Orwell's "Animal Farm".

(2) You are the one who tiresomely reiterates that lawbreakers must pay the penalty, and your only response to the observation that they frequently commit crimes anyway is that they just don't believe they'll be caught. That's a very convenient bit of circular logic, since it assumes that the "malefactors" are unable to see what's going on around them-- that is, the whole gamut of legal methods to circumvent penalties-- and that they're just pig-ignorant of the unerring Hand of Justice. Thanks, but if I want to listen to an episode of DRAGNET I'll tune in Youtube.

The fact that you don't like reality isn't really my problem.

(3) You have the right to challenge any alleged assumption with logic. I'm still waiting for a logical reply to the October surprise.

Since I consider that "October Surprise" is a historically hallowed and long accepted practice in American politics, it really isn't relevant to whether or not someone broke the law - is it?

(4) Ah, I get it: assumptions about the nature of the polity are OK, as long as they're defamatory toward Trump. That's why no logic is necessary.

It might surprise you to realize that it was not I that raised the point that a significant percentage of the American electorate was aware that Mr. Trump was a scofflaw and voted for him anyways.

(5) Still not a justification for your incredible passion for an imaginary "gotcha."

Most people only complain about a "gotcha" when they have been got.

(6) So you're admitting that no one on this thread, at least, has argued that Trump should be "exempt" from any crimes he commits?

That isn't quite the same as the position that "If the President does it, it isn't illegal." which is the backbone of many posts.

I certainly hope that the corollary is that he should only be found guilty if there is a preponderance of real evidence.

That would be my position. Unfortunate the (in reality) way that that is applied these days is that

"Until after someone that I support has exhausted all appeals (by losing them), after being convicted, after being tried, after being indicted they are **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T** and that means that any investigation into anything that they might have done is a perversion of justice because no one who is **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T** should be investigated and it also means that whatever they were unjustly convicted of doing simply didn't happen - on the other hand, if it is someone that I do not support, then the mere fact that someone mentions that they thought that they might have heard that there could have been an accusation against them means that they are **G*U*I*L*T*Y** and all that indictment, trial, conviction, and appeal nonsense is a waste of time.".
​

Now I will agree with you that that is NOT the way that "the system" is SUPPOSED to work, but I also see how "the system" DOES work.

 

[Ouroboros]

Strangely enough, at law, the fact that FusionGPS is an American company makes a whole lot of difference.

You see, there is no law against an American company buying information from any source whatsoever (unless that source happens to be an American who does not have the legal right to sell the information [in which case it IS illegal for the American company to buy it]).

But it's disingenuous of you to emphasize the American company's role in the transaction, when all through this thread the sticking point has been that the information transmitted to that American company was from a hostile power. Only ideologues are committed to the belief that said information MUST be golden, that it cannot have been planted as disinformation, because "let's get rid of Trump."

 

[Ouroboros]

True, but he does GAIN the status of "candidate" and, as such, is bound by the same laws as any other "candidate".



True, and as long as he does not use the information in his capacity as "candidate" there is no problem whatsoever.



Obviously the concept of "double hatted" is totally unfamiliar to you.

Since Mueller loosely implies that the only reason he didn't prosecute Trump is because the Prez can't be prosecuted, that alone indicates that Presidential status "trumps" candidate status.

Or so the side against the lib-lawyers would most likely argue.