I can’t say for sure, but if your acts are carried out within U.S. jurisdiction, even if you are not physically present, then you would seem to be in jeopardy (at least in theory).
For example, the Russian intelligence officers indicted for hacking the DNC surely were not present in the U.S. when it happened. If they had mailed a check from downtown Moscow for a million dollars to Trump’s campaign, of course they would be in similar trouble.
Of course, if you they sent a letter to the editor of the Moscow Times saying how great Trump was, it’s hard to see how the U.S. would have any jurisdiction over that.
I’m interested in these questions as well. Ravenman, are you saying that I could write a letter to the Washington Post (assuming the Brits had a similar law) urging our cousins to vote Labour, but if I posted on Facebook and someone in the UK downloaded it onto their phone or PC in the UK, then I have committed a crime? What if the Post included my letter in their online edition and UK citizens viewed the letter on the web in the UK?
Again, this is GQ, so I’m not trying to argue, but it seems like we have an undefined line here regarding what foreigners may or may not do in our elections.
I think it’s fair to say that the intersection between campaign finance laws and protected speech are complex. And campaign finance laws have been turned upside down over and over during the last couple decades, so I think it’s fair to say that the limits of such laws remain to be fully tested.
Clinton campaign PAID Russians for dirt which was unsubstantiated. Russians paid Bill Clinton a half million dollars for a speech and 145 million to the Clinton foundation.
The Trump campaign paid nothing to the Russians and received nothing from the Russians.
The minuscule amount of money the Russians paid to facebook covered BOTH
parties. Beyond that Hillary outspent Trump 2 to 1.
It’s time the Democratic party took ownership for putting HRC
Clinton campaign PAID Russians for dirt which was unsubstantiated. Russians paid Bill Clinton a half million dollars for a speech and 145 million to the Clinton foundation.
The Trump campaign paid nothing to the Russians and received nothing from the Russians.
The minuscule amount of money the Russians paid to facebook covered BOTH
parties. Beyond that Hillary outspent Trump 2 to 1.
It’s time the Democratic party took ownership for putting HRC on the ballet and losing the election because of it. It was an easy win with a moderate candidate.
I can’t help wondering about disinformation.
I used to see Facebook posts all the time about ridiculous urban legends. Don’t people research these “facts”?
Maybe people who automatically believe that this is the first month in 500 years to have four Sundays deserve the president they voted for.
I don’t whether it is a crime, and probably not, in view of the First Amendment, but an ambassador who published such a letter would cause a major diplomatic ruckus that would get him sent home in a trice. (What form of transport is a trice?) Diplomats are not supposed to intervene in local political matters. The current spat between Saudi and Canada is an example of that, but much more extreme due to the touchiness of the king.
This just shows that all manner of legislation gets tied up in legal knots due to computers and online communications aka the Internet. Where does a crime take place if it is committed online, with different locations for the criminal and the crime? The USA, among others, is trying to prosecute crimes that took place in the USA - but that is already stretching a definition in many cases due to the use of computers and the vexed question of where data is actually located - by persons outside the USA.
Remember Manuel Noriega, the President of Panama? I don’t think he ever set foot in the United States before he was indicted by a federal grand jury in Miami for money laundering and drug offenses. The United States sent 27,000 troops to Panama to arrest him and bring him back to Miami where he was tried and convicted.
They researched what parts of our country were the most critical to achieving electoral success.
They targeted social media users in those areas with ads to persuade them to, at the very least, not bother turning out for Hillary.
The strategy was built on the fact that the electoral college requires individual states to be won. The EC is not in and of itself a bad thing. Imagine that one large area of the country has terrible weather on election day. That will suppress the voter turnout in that area. But proportionately whoever wins in that area still gets all the EC votes.
And if you were confused on the matter, Trump is almost certainly an illegitimate president.
In addition to the misinformation that Russia spread, they allegation is that they hacked into sensitive materials. They may have shared this stolen information with the Trump campaign. They may have also provided financial assistance. It’s not simply a propaganda campaign that was waged.
So did the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the third parties,and every campaign manager in America.
So did the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the third parties, and every campaign manager in America
Please grow up and accept the facts.
The voters spoke, the system worked exactly as it should; the Electoral College exists, and the guy with the most votes is the legitimate president…
I don’t like it either, but the blame lies on the American voters who follow Facebook, not Russian bots who posted there.
Yes, but when those parties engage in campaigning they’re required to announce who they are. Find me one of those Russian posts that ends with “I’m Vladimir Putin, and I approved this message.”