Scroll down here for the 11 Republicans’ referral letter to DOJ. They want DOJ to investigate Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe, and FBI agents Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.
I figured I’d head straight to the good stuff, and see what they want to see Hillary charged with. (Lock her up, lock her up!) Their bill of particulars is all of two sentences long.
As you can see if you click through, 52 USC 30121 makes it unlawful for furriners to contribute to U.S. elections. Doesn’t seem very much on point with the conduct they describe. But whatever.
But 52 USC 30101 is literally a list of definitions. Like a lot of laws, there will be a section at the beginning where they define all the terms that they’ll use throughout, to leave as little ambiguity as possible about what they mean. 52 USC 30101 is one of those kinds of sections.
But they say they’re referring “Hillary Clinton to DOJ for potential violation(s) of…52 USC 30101.”
Aside from jokes involving strap-ons, I’m not sure how she could have violated a list of definitions. But apparently these Republicans think she might’ve done so, and the possibility is serious enough that DOJ needs to investigate.
Maybe they were jealous that the Administration was out-dumbing them, and this is what they came up with.
Disguising it how, exactly? Only listing it as ‘oppo research?’
As I understand it, Perkins Coie never told them who was doing the work, so these Republicans are trying to claim that the DNC/campaign were deliberately hiding that it was Fusiono GPS. As usual, the conclusion does not follow from the facts.
I notice that the 11 R’s are all no-names…gotta keep the leadership from the appearance of culpability for this bullshit.
Well, now that they’re wrapped up that investigation into Russian interference into 2016 elections without bothering to investigate dozens of witnesses they need something to keep House Republicans occupied. Gotta keep those kids off the street before they get into trouble, especially Devin Nunes. That kid is a tagger for sure.
So the campaign and DNC had their lawyer perform a common lawyerly task of hiring an outside firm to do research. The lawyer is American, works for a US law practice, and presumably was paid by the campaign/DNC. The outside firm, Fusion GPS, is an American company and was paid by all of the above. Fusion then outsourced the work to Michael Steele, again presumably remunerated for his efforts. Steele is the only foreign national involved and everyone was duly compensated for their work.
When the democrats take power in the house (and hopefully senate), they had better investigate the republicans as thoroughly as the GOP investigated the dems.
I want to see if McConnell, the house intel committee, Ryan, etc. helped cover up crimes and if so if they can be prosecuted for it. I want every aspect of Trump’s life investigated. I want all the Russian money tied to the GOP investigated and prosecuted.
I don’t think there’s any, and to the extent there is, I argue that the First Amendment protects the right of such foreign persons to assist a campaign by providing information.
“Information”, eh? Like when I saw on FB how Hillary kidnapped Bernie Bed Hair’s grandkids and sold them to the pizza sex slave conspiracy? That was Russian guys offering me information? Assisting me, helping me out with my tough decision.
Well, bless their hearts! And I never even thanked them!
Given that we can spy on foreigners in foreign lands without a warrant, I’m given to understand that the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to non-Citizens on foreign soil.
Suppose I’m Mr. Foreign Rich Guy, and I, out of my billions, build up mailing lists of potential supporters, contributors, and volunteers for one party - information worth a lot of money - and, out of the goodness of my heart (and with my financial interests in the U.S. in mind), donate this information to the candidate nominated by that party.
It’s information, but it’s information with a nontrivial cash value to it. How is it different to hand over this information rather than the money that paid for it?
If the law worked that way (IANAL, but AFAICT it doesn’t), it would be a bit like money-laundering.
Pretty much…it defines “contribution” and “election”, which is why it was cited along with the other law, which makes it a crime for a foreign national to make a contribution to an election. Nothing weird or nefarious.
(For example, I have a case where a person is accused of violating 2 laws; one makes it a federal crime to assault a person on Federal Indian Land; the other defines Federal Indian land (e.g. a reservation). The client isn’t being charged with the ‘definition’ of Federal Indian Land, but it is a necessary statute to cite to get the case into the appropriate federal court).
And there’s the matter of wasting taxpayer money, too, with absurd accusations. The little venture described by the OP might well fit that, er, definition.
Weaponizing Congressional process and using tax payer dollars to do it is despicable. While I am unsure of any legal liability for these actions, I hope steps can be taken to codify prohibitions against such future activity.
At this point the list of 'changes in policy/rules/laws needed to protect the nation against the harm we’ve seen visited on it since 2016’ is getting to be longer than the tax code.
You’re right. We’ve got a long way to go just to get to where we were before this whole disgusting mess. And in some ways, we will never recover what we’ve lost.