Assuming your hypothetical, then the answer is a firm maybe.
Let’s go the the Federal Election Commission for some (hopefully) unbiased information on what laws are in place about the involvement of foreign nationals in US elections.
And per the FEC, "It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment. " See 11CFR110.20(h).
Foreign governments and foreign corporations, among others, qualify as foreign nationals for the purposes of the FARA. Green card holders do not count as foreign nationals for these purposes.
So… if money came into play, then it certainly seems that a case *might *could be made that a law was violated by person(s) in your hypothetical.
Thanks, Iggy. (Bricker, please observe how a conservative and a liberal can talk without immediately interpreting one another in the worst possible light in order to score points.)
As I understand the situation–and please correct me if I’m wrong–the evidence so far is that Russia hacked the DNC and released incriminating emails in a fashioned designed to help Trump. Trump had a server with a direct line to someone in Russia. Certain members of Trump’s campaign had close ties to the Russian government.
At this point, we don’t know that Trump actively coordinated with Moscow. We don’t know that anyone in his campaign did. If none of them did, my question is probably moot.
But if it comes out that Trump or one of his aides engaged in such coordination, even if money were not exchanged, would that violate any law? As in, we find an email by Lewandowksi to a Moscow contact saying, “Tell JA to release Sachs speech before Tuesday,” would that violate the law?
If Trump knew about such emails and failed to disclose what he knew, would that violate the law?
If McConnell knew what was going on and worked behind the scenes (i.e., in that meeting with Obama) to quash public discussion of the, would that violate the law?
For the benefit of Bricker, I’m not suggesting this is what happened. But we’re living in a badly-written Tom Clancy novel these days, and things that seemed incredibly unlikely two years ago are hapening today. I’m trying to figure out what the laws are in this situation, where we find out that a foreign power has successfully meddled in our presidential election, and whether any US actors who benefited (knowingly or otherwise) from the meddling may be legally culpable.
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
in an email to Putin, that would be coordination with Moscow. That he said it on a stage in full view of the cameras makes it more brazen, but does not negate the coordination.
It is a subject well beyond the American elections, the European intelligence services are noting the intensive activity of a similar nature to the American accusations aiming at EU area elections (citing the Germans as it is in English).
It appears to me there is a profound challenge here that goes beyond just the American partisan politics and yelling at each other. The european concerns have no thing to do with the American elections, and the pattern is very similar.
Propaganda has of course always been used by governments against other goverments, since long before any of us were born. The new aspect - the aspect that amplifies it - is the internet.
The only answer I can see is that the American people have to become better at critical thinking and more interested in seeking out facts, regardless of whether or not those facts fit their preconceptions.
And maybe we can genetically engineer pigs to grow wings.
What evidence is this ? Documented evidence ? Admissible evidence ? And what blow-by-blow mechanisms, saying* these are the things which happened, and these are the proofs that X did this* ?
Otherwise it just sounds like Americans falling back on The Russian Bear.
And some of Trump’s wretched people had ties to Russian officials; as did Podesta’s wretched people. Most folk in import/export or the higher reaches of any government are going to have contacts everywhere.
It is a complete mystery to me how the same conservatives who just a few years ago would have been screaming bloody murder years about Russian influence even on a lesser scale than this are simply shrugging it off now. Trump and his worshipers really do remind me of Hitler’s sway over his followers.
It’s no mystery to me. The Republicans have been becoming more and more frantic about demographic changes, and more and more willing to do just about anything to thwart the consequences of that to their party and their philosophy.
Given the chance to lock in their hold on power for at least a generation (with a friendly SCOTUS, etc.), they’re willing to look the other way or even lie to themselves concerning the source of their salvation.
Not just propaganda. Espionage, hacking/data-theft (and possible treason, if it wasn’t entirely external) are not things that should be taken lightly when they are part of our elections.
Based on what I learned from history people like Trump, with his support of torture and killing even family members of our enemies, do favor policies that point to even more meddling in other people’s business.
What it is worse is that Trump is bound to get involved in interventions overseas if his personal or family business are affected or if an intervention can benefit his.
Personally, I tend to dismiss any notion of collusion, if only because I doubt that the Russians would trust anyone on the Trump side of things to keep his pie-hole in check. A useful idiot may be used, but never trusted.
On the other hand, as noted above, we have Trump urging them to hack for tired ol’ Hillary’s e-mails, so there’s that.
Which unevidenced assertions ? You are talking nonsense. Trump’s people have had Russian contacts, as have Podesta’s. These are not state secrets.
What behaviour ?
Has he taken to hanging around the Glienicke Bridge in a trenchcoat smoking endless cigarettes? Has he established a dead-letter drop in Central Park where Trump covertly scurries to get his instructions ? Has he taken to visiting the Lubianka to shoot people in the back of the head as pastime ?
Or is it dozens of intelligence services earning their bread by propagating alarmist stories about whomever is bogeyman of the day ? Whatever feeble tricks the Russkies play they are nothing to the damage done by the Americans to themselves.
If the Russians had created fake news stories, how exactly would that induce people to vote one way ? Critics need to understand that people who voted for Clinton had good reasons in their own view, and equally so those who voted for Trump, or any other candidate. No-one was tricked. One may despise the result, but that’s what elections do.
A few years ago-- hell, a few short weeks ago-- the left decried any possibility of foreign influences on the election. Or that Russia was anything other than a declining regional power. That is, until Trump won. Now they’re suddenly capable of doing everything the left said they couldn’t do.
We’ve gone from Putin, to protests, to recounts, to flipping the EC votes back to Putin. The left is looking for anything to deligitimize Trump’s win, and as such have relegated themselves to attacking boogeymen and subscribing to inane conspiracy theories. That’s really all there is to it.
Bricker, THAT IS THE QUESTION. Are there legal ramifications to Trump’s encouragement of Russian interference in the election?
Morally, do you believe there are ramifications? If so, how will that motivate your actions going forward, and how do you believe it should motivate the actions of others (perhaps qualified as “others who start from specific moral principles”)?
If you’re wanting to score points or scold people for their shoddy arguments, wag that finger. But if you’re interested in a real discussion, it’d be helpful to give your own view.
If your point is that Russia has dramatically upped its espionage game in the last few years, sure. One of the bright points about Democrats is their relative willingness to change their conclusions based on changing information. That’s a feature, not a bug.
This is very similar to the handwaving done about climate change. Don’t bother with the facts–it’s all just liberal hysteria!
People like the politicians who cheered the killings of Gaddafi’s children, some quite small, and then laughed gleefully at his horrific death ? As did Hillary.
