Do you mean “paying money to DNC” by “illegally influencing our federal elections”? And if so, why didn’t you say so?
It was not a “foreign government official”.
First you have to meet the person to receive that information. Otherwise there is nothing to “inform the U.S. intelligence community” about.
As I said, the concept of having some basis before accusing someone of a crime seems to be utterly foreign to Democrats.
Forget it, Jake. It’s Russiatown.
I haven’t seen any stories fizzle out. What you don’t seem to learn is that this is exactly how investigations play out. I said several months ago that there would be many stories over weeks and months, some big and some small, some that even turn out to be false or irrelevant, because that’s how this works.
You claim that every story is a bombshell and that it goes nowhere and is therefore untrue and everybody’s innocent, when the truth is that they are all pieces of a puzzle. What that puzzle looks like when finished is anybody’s guess, but you sure as hell don’t know.
The only thing that is clear right now is that the investigations are going deep and wide and fast. That never happens when there is nothing to find.
I’m curious when you’re going to stop ignoring my question and actually answer it. You have professed absolute, unshakable faith that there’s nothing ‘there’ there. Therefore you must have absolute, unshakable evidence. So provide it.
What EXACTLY is it that so convinces you that this is all just a conspiracy to ‘get’ Trump? Where is your evidence?
Right now, best case scenario is that the Trump’s tried to collude and failed. Which is unlikely considering the administration is bending over backwards (even in the face of GOP outrage) to support Putin.
You can’t prove a negative. But you can prove a positive - and YOU can’t.
When after months and months of desperate, massive, digging there is no evidence of anything “there” - there is nothing “there”.
As I said before, though, you guys fall for every huckster who comes by trying to sell you what you want to hear. I guess it’s good if it keeps you out of trouble.
You don’t know that. Yet you say it over and over again in the plainest of terms, as if you know absolutely that this is all just a made-up conspiracy theory. But you don’t, and you can’t, so you are simply making a profession of faith, which has no value here.
Btw, what I said was “it looks pretty damn bad.” That’s all. But you can’t even admit that.
The spit-take this statement deserves would flood the Atacama.
Do you have a cite to back that up?
Political campaigns pay for opposition research all the time. Information about an opponent is a thing of value.
Former Director Mueller is working the case right now. I’m sure he has plenty of evidence, but the investigation is ongoing.
Are you saying that he should leak all of the evidence right now? Why do you seem so opposed to letting the investigation play out before final judgement is rendered?
It’s like you just want this whole thing shut down now. Why? If you are so confident that there’s nothing there you should be supporting the investigation whole heartedly. The saying “me thinks thou dost protest too much!” seems to be relevant here.
I say lets let the investigation continue and come to its conclusion before we decide what did or didn’t happen. Are you really opposed to that? It’s like you are asking a judge to declare someone innocent while the police are still talking to witnesses and gathering information. You have no idea what evidence they already have, so I’ll go ahead and let them continue rather than taking your word for it, thanks very much.
https://fec-prod-eregs.app.cloud.gov/regulations/100-52/2017-annual-100#100-52-b-2
“… the term anything of value includes all in-kind contributions. Unless specifically exempted under 11 CFR part 100, subpart C, the provision of any goods or services without charge or at a charge that is less than the usual and normal charge for such goods or services is a contribution. Examples of such goods or services include, but are not limited to: Securities, facilities, equipment, supplies, personnel, advertising services, membership lists, and mailing lists. If goods or services are provided at less than the usual and normal charge, the amount of the in-kind contribution is the difference between the usual and normal charge for the goods or services at the time of the contribution and the amount charged the political committee.”
Show me where “information” is in that.
What part of “include, but are not limited to” did you miss?
“Anything of value refers to any goods that have a certain utility to the recipient that is real and that is ordinarily not given away free but is purchased.”
Note specifically:
“Anything of value does not include:
…
d. informational or promotional items”
This is exactly what some people want.
“This investigation to find evidence should be shut down because the evidence is weak”
They phrase it in different terms, but this is what the argument boils down to. And they see nothing wrong with this logic.
Of course, these are often the same people who thought that Obama could be both a Muslim, AND that his Christian pastor was terrible.
These are the same people who show up at a Washington pizza restaurant with a gun to “rescue” child slaves that are hidden in the basement of a building with no basement.
These are the same people who believe National Enquirer headlines like “Bigfoot Kept Lumberjack as Love Slave” or “Hillary Clinton Adopts Alien Baby”
There is no logic there. There is barely much reasoning going on. And there are a lot of people like this.
And yet here we are with the latest revelation being that Trump campaign leaders met with Russian operatives to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. Every revelation is worse than the last.
What’ll the next one be, I wonder?
On that note, this is an interesting take on a minor point of the leaks. The leaks came from three members of the White House itself, suggesting coordination from within the White House. The author hypothesizes that one of the possibilities for this is that something even bigger is coming, and they wanted to get out in front of it.
And with this administration it seems something bigger keeps on coming.
That’s under the heading
The prohibition on contributions by foreign nationals is federal.
And in the, “you can’t make this stuff up” category. The guy who reportedly brokered the meeting in question, Rob Goldstone posted this picture of himself the day after the election. Just a nice selfie wearing a simple T shirt that just says “Russia”.
Evidently not, since some people still bother responding to you.
Well, perhaps you would. However, anyone working in the Clinton campaign would know better than to respond to every crank query that came in over the transom.
Goldstone is a business associate of Russian developers who had been talking to Trump regarding real estate deals. Real estate deals certainly fall under “anything of value”, right?