|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Do multiple people have access to Doodsmacks account?
|
On October 18 2016 08:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 08:41 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On October 18 2016 08:30 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2016 06:54 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On October 18 2016 06:39 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2016 06:23 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 06:20 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 05:21 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
That is the point, the post you just quoted to ask me what the point is, contains the entire point: Whether the government has charged you is not proof of whether you've done something illegal. You're confused because I wasn't addressing you, go back to the beginning of the chain. He's not confused. Your logic is exactly what I said it was, convoluted. Yes there are people who aren't charged who are guilty, but being investigated and not charged in an indication of innocent that would take the bar of "Innocent until proven guilty" and raise it even higher than that. In either case that has nothing to do with someone being charged for something they didn't do except being the worst possible way to make a point. People in the world get charged and convicted for things they didn't do and other people don't even get charged for things they did (Look at the unsolved murder rate). Are you with me on this? On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:
Fair enough to be suspicious, but unless there's something really really convincing at some point you need to assume that people who are cleared of charges are not guilty of those charges. Otherwise a whole lot of society just breaks down.
Not being charged is not the same as being acquitted. It never ceases to amaze that this is the reaction when the FBI director tiptoes around saying gross negligence in a press conference. Cleared of charges, indeed! It never ceases to amaze me when people are willing to throw out due process and proper interpretation of the law when it suits them considering how fundamentally important those concepts are for protecting rights. She had a right to trial by jury, and should've had the chance to clear her name but for a craven opposition not calling for independent review. Comey's the one here that needs to properly interpret the law. He wrote in an intent provision lacking in the espionage act, then proceeded to outline intent in the congressional hearing. Now, the worlds upside down lately, so I'm totally prepared to hear why proper interpretation necessarily involves the FBI rewriting statute. I understand the pressures against Comey to not recommend charges against a presidential candidate this close to an election. He has however done an incredible disservice to faith in government institutions that will outlive his tenure. There's one set of laws for well-connected elites, and another for your average Joe. Now you can grant immunity to almost everyone involved, do one unsworn interview three days before the press conference with co-conspirators present, and call it a thorough investigation. What law are you talking about? Comey doesn't have to stretch very hard for 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information. See the bolded below. (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— ... (b) As used in subsection (a) of this section— The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution; The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798Now perhaps you are talking about the 1917 law (§793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information**) that Comey says was only used once in 99 years. That only plainly says INTENT in the first line. Either way, this "no intent" talking point I see right wingers use is totally fact-free. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/comey-nobody-uses-1917-law-making-gross-negligence-crime** http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section793&num=0&edition=prelim The relevant section is 793. Previously in the thread. If we're being complete, she was also in violation of the federal records act, but the far more pernicious offense was excrcising gross negligence (extreme carelessness if you're Comey) in handling classified information. I did cite 793. 793(a) requires intent, 793(f) uses Gross Negligence. I also cited Comey's remarks on that very (f) provision. If you think Comey is wrong, then you need to show exactly where he went wrong in discussing 793(f). It isn't enough to just say "bias". Show the work (you have the burden because Comey is the professional with actual authority here and engaged in a due process backed determination that recommended no charges). "But Comey noted that at the time Congress passed the law in 1917, "there was a lot of concern in the House and the Senate about whether that was going to violate the American tradition of requiring that before you're going to lock somebody up, you prove they knew they were doing something wrong. And so there was a lot of concern when the statute was passed.
"As best I can tell, the Department of Justice has used it once in the 99 years since, reflecting that same concern," he said.
"I know from 30 years with the Department of Justice, they have grave concerns about whether it's appropriate to prosecute somebody for gross negligence, which is why they've done it once that I know of, in a case involving espionage.
"And so when I look at the facts we gathered here, as I said, I see evidence of great carelessness, but I do not see evidence that's sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton or those with whom she was corresponding both talked about classified information on email and knew when they did it that they were doing something that was against the law.
"So given that assessment of the facts, and my understanding of the law, my conclusion was and remains, no reasonable proseuctor would bring this case. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years focused on gross negligence.""
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/comey-nobody-uses-1917-law-making-gross-negligence-crime Comey drew arbitrary lines between what he considered extreme carelessness and gross negligence and then launched into a foolhardy attempt to get everybody to focus on intent. It's pretty plain. Maybe watch the ballerina dance of a press conference again? I don't find what you brought persuasive at all. Hillary's red line on Syria might be more clear than what Comey considers the dividing line in his dictionary of arbitrary disctinctions.
So you have nothing to dispute Comey's assertions? Great.
If you really wanted to prove Comey wrong, you could cite actual prosecutions under 793(f). Comey says there was one in the last 100 years. Just so you know, I doubt you will find that one case. Here is a great summary on 793(f):
http://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/
|
On October 18 2016 08:47 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 08:44 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2016 08:33 kwizach wrote:On October 18 2016 08:30 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2016 06:54 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On October 18 2016 06:39 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2016 06:23 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 06:20 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:
[quote]
He's not confused. Your logic is exactly what I said it was, convoluted. Yes there are people who aren't charged who are guilty, but being investigated and not charged in an indication of innocent that would take the bar of "Innocent until proven guilty" and raise it even higher than that. In either case that has nothing to do with someone being charged for something they didn't do except being the worst possible way to make a point. People in the world get charged and convicted for things they didn't do and other people don't even get charged for things they did (Look at the unsolved murder rate). Are you with me on this? On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:
Fair enough to be suspicious, but unless there's something really really convincing at some point you need to assume that people who are cleared of charges are not guilty of those charges. Otherwise a whole lot of society just breaks down.
Not being charged is not the same as being acquitted. It never ceases to amaze that this is the reaction when the FBI director tiptoes around saying gross negligence in a press conference. Cleared of charges, indeed! It never ceases to amaze me when people are willing to throw out due process and proper interpretation of the law when it suits them considering how fundamentally important those concepts are for protecting rights. She had a right to trial by jury, and should've had the chance to clear her name but for a craven opposition not calling for independent review. Comey's the one here that needs to properly interpret the law. He wrote in an intent provision lacking in the espionage act, then proceeded to outline intent in the congressional hearing. Now, the worlds upside down lately, so I'm totally prepared to hear why proper interpretation necessarily involves the FBI rewriting statute. I understand the pressures against Comey to not recommend charges against a presidential candidate this close to an election. He has however done an incredible disservice to faith in government institutions that will outlive his tenure. There's one set of laws for well-connected elites, and another for your average Joe. Now you can grant immunity to almost everyone involved, do one unsworn interview three days before the press conference with co-conspirators present, and call it a thorough investigation. What law are you talking about? Comey doesn't have to stretch very hard for 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information. See the bolded below. (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— ... (b) As used in subsection (a) of this section— The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution; The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798Now perhaps you are talking about the 1917 law (§793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information**) that Comey says was only used once in 99 years. That only plainly says INTENT in the first line. Either way, this "no intent" talking point I see right wingers use is totally fact-free. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/comey-nobody-uses-1917-law-making-gross-negligence-crime** http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section793&num=0&edition=prelim The relevant section is 793. Previously in the thread. If we're being complete, she was also in violation of the federal records act, but the far more pernicious offense was excrcising gross negligence (extreme carelessness if you're Comey) in handling classified information. If we're being complete, there was no "gross negligence" involved, meaning the section doesn't apply. Maybe if the jury was made up of twelve of you. She didn't exercise precautions in a sustained manner over years. Put together a jury of twelve peers with average distribution of Hillary shills and we'll see. But if you want to argue semantics to protect your dear lady until people give up trying, you're fully welcome to. When you convince yourself that you alone are looking at things objectively and everyone else is just being biased you are pretty much impossible to talk to. If judges on the supreme court can have different interpretations of the law and they are some of the smartest legal minds in the country if not the world then it is completely possible for other people to have them and they not be attributed to bias.
Disagreement is the heart of debate. I happen to think others are deliberately holding Hillary to extra-judicial standards that exist in their minds and perhaps Comey's. Or how long has it been since you've seen a Trump supporter here accused of twisting themselves into pretzels of logic?
|
On October 18 2016 08:54 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 08:48 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2016 08:41 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On October 18 2016 08:30 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2016 06:54 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On October 18 2016 06:39 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2016 06:23 Logo wrote:On October 18 2016 06:20 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:
[quote]
He's not confused. Your logic is exactly what I said it was, convoluted. Yes there are people who aren't charged who are guilty, but being investigated and not charged in an indication of innocent that would take the bar of "Innocent until proven guilty" and raise it even higher than that. In either case that has nothing to do with someone being charged for something they didn't do except being the worst possible way to make a point. People in the world get charged and convicted for things they didn't do and other people don't even get charged for things they did (Look at the unsolved murder rate). Are you with me on this? On October 18 2016 05:33 Logo wrote:
Fair enough to be suspicious, but unless there's something really really convincing at some point you need to assume that people who are cleared of charges are not guilty of those charges. Otherwise a whole lot of society just breaks down.
Not being charged is not the same as being acquitted. It never ceases to amaze that this is the reaction when the FBI director tiptoes around saying gross negligence in a press conference. Cleared of charges, indeed! It never ceases to amaze me when people are willing to throw out due process and proper interpretation of the law when it suits them considering how fundamentally important those concepts are for protecting rights. She had a right to trial by jury, and should've had the chance to clear her name but for a craven opposition not calling for independent review. Comey's the one here that needs to properly interpret the law. He wrote in an intent provision lacking in the espionage act, then proceeded to outline intent in the congressional hearing. Now, the worlds upside down lately, so I'm totally prepared to hear why proper interpretation necessarily involves the FBI rewriting statute. I understand the pressures against Comey to not recommend charges against a presidential candidate this close to an election. He has however done an incredible disservice to faith in government institutions that will outlive his tenure. There's one set of laws for well-connected elites, and another for your average Joe. Now you can grant immunity to almost everyone involved, do one unsworn interview three days before the press conference with co-conspirators present, and call it a thorough investigation. What law are you talking about? Comey doesn't have to stretch very hard for 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information. See the bolded below. (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— ... (b) As used in subsection (a) of this section— The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution; The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798Now perhaps you are talking about the 1917 law (§793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information**) that Comey says was only used once in 99 years. That only plainly says INTENT in the first line. Either way, this "no intent" talking point I see right wingers use is totally fact-free. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/comey-nobody-uses-1917-law-making-gross-negligence-crime** http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section793&num=0&edition=prelim The relevant section is 793. Previously in the thread. If we're being complete, she was also in violation of the federal records act, but the far more pernicious offense was excrcising gross negligence (extreme carelessness if you're Comey) in handling classified information. I did cite 793. 793(a) requires intent, 793(f) uses Gross Negligence. I also cited Comey's remarks on that very (f) provision. If you think Comey is wrong, then you need to show exactly where he went wrong in discussing 793(f). It isn't enough to just say "bias". Show the work (you have the burden because Comey is the professional with actual authority here and engaged in a due process backed determination that recommended no charges). "But Comey noted that at the time Congress passed the law in 1917, "there was a lot of concern in the House and the Senate about whether that was going to violate the American tradition of requiring that before you're going to lock somebody up, you prove they knew they were doing something wrong. And so there was a lot of concern when the statute was passed.
"As best I can tell, the Department of Justice has used it once in the 99 years since, reflecting that same concern," he said.
"I know from 30 years with the Department of Justice, they have grave concerns about whether it's appropriate to prosecute somebody for gross negligence, which is why they've done it once that I know of, in a case involving espionage.
"And so when I look at the facts we gathered here, as I said, I see evidence of great carelessness, but I do not see evidence that's sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton or those with whom she was corresponding both talked about classified information on email and knew when they did it that they were doing something that was against the law.
"So given that assessment of the facts, and my understanding of the law, my conclusion was and remains, no reasonable proseuctor would bring this case. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years focused on gross negligence.""
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/comey-nobody-uses-1917-law-making-gross-negligence-crime Comey drew arbitrary lines between what he considered extreme carelessness and gross negligence and then launched into a foolhardy attempt to get everybody to focus on intent. It's pretty plain. Maybe watch the ballerina dance of a press conference again? I don't find what you brought persuasive at all. Hillary's red line on Syria might be more clear than what Comey considers the dividing line in his dictionary of arbitrary disctinctions. So you have nothing to dispute Comey's assertions? Great. If you really wanted to prove Comey wrong, you could cite actual prosecutions under 793(f). Comey says there was one in the last 100 years. Just so you know, I doubt you will find that one case. Here is a great summary on 793(f): http://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/
I'm supposed to prove gross negligence beyond admitted extreme carelessness? I see you're having a grand old time here. Let's see a judge and jury and two sets of lawyers get into splitting hairs if that's your game plan.
|
Lawyers splitting hairs? that would be unheard of! /sarcasm
I won't be convinced comey's wrong unless you put up a pretty strong argument, cuz he defended his case well, and he knows more about the law than you. and so far cannons details also look more thorough.
|
Republican lawyers said on Monday it was impossible for the Nov. 8 U.S. presidential election to be "rigged" against Donald Trump, despite such allegations by the Republican nominee in recent days.
Trump, a New York businessman making his first run for public office, has sought to raise fears of a flawed election as he has fallen in opinion polls against Democrat Hillary Clinton.
"Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!" Trump said on Twitter on Monday.
Numerous studies have shown that voter fraud in U.S. elections is very rare.
Republican campaign lawyer Chris Ashby said Trump's charges, which were not backed by any evidence, could foment unrest and were “unfounded” and “dangerous.”
"When you say an election is rigged, you’re telling voters, your supporters, their votes do not matter,” Ashby said in an interview. "I think some of Donald Trump’s comments could cause unrest at the polls."
Some Republicans have urged Trump to drop the assertions. Early voting and voting by mail have already begun in many states.
Mark Braden, partner at Baker and Hostetler and former chief counsel for the Republican National Committee, said that any sort of election rigging at the national level “just is impossible,” citing the various systems in place that would make such an endeavor complicated and unfeasible.
“Our system is principally a system based upon each side watching the other side,” Braden said in an interview. “Our system is dependent on local volunteer participation. Our system has worked very well because we have people who get involved in the process and perform these functions.”
[...]
Trump's vice presidential running mate, Mike Pence, and his campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, have tried to portray the candidate's comments about vote rigging as being aimed at an unfair news media. But Trump has also pointed to fraud "at many polling places."
The country's top elected Republican, House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, has also tried to counter Trump's message about election fraud. Spokeswoman AshLee Strong said Ryan "is fully confident the states will carry out this election with integrity."
In the traditionally hard-fought state of Ohio, the top elections official, a Republican, said concerns about widespread voter fraud were simply not justified.
"I can reassure Donald Trump: I am in charge of elections in Ohio and they're not going to be rigged, I'll make sure of that," Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted told CNN.
Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said Trump's assault on the voting system was an act of desperation.
"He knows he's losing and is trying to blame that on the system. This is what losers do," Mook told reporters.
In a report titled "The Truth About Voter Fraud," the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law cited voter fraud incident rates between 0.00004 percent and 0.0009 percent.
An August study by the Washington Post found 31 credible cases of impersonation fraud out of more than 1 billion votes cast in elections from 2000 to 2014. Arizona State University studies in 2012 and 2016 found similarly low rates.
A number of Republican-led states, citing the need to prevent voter fraud, have passed laws with stricter ID requirements. But several have been struck down by courts that ruled they were designed to hinder minority voting.
Ashby, the Republican campaign lawyer, said Trump seemed to be conflating isolated instances of voter fraud with widespread election rigging.
"The election is not rigged and it cannot be rigged," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKBN12H1UN
|
Everyone should applaud this.
A North Dakota judge today refused to authorize riot charges against award-winning journalist Amy Goodman for her reporting on an attack against Native American-led anti-pipeline protesters.
“This is a complete vindication of my right as a journalist to cover the attack on the protesters, and of the public’s right to know what is happening with the Dakota Access pipeline,” said Goodman. "We will continue to report on this epic struggle of Native Americans and their non-Native allies taking on the fossil fuel industry and an increasingly militarized police in this time when climate change threatens the planet."
District Judge John Grinsteiner did not find probable cause to justify the charges filed on Friday October 14 by State’s Attorney Ladd R. Erickson. Those charges were presented after Erickson had withdrawn an earlier charge against Goodman of criminal trespass. Goodman had returned to North Dakota to turn herself in to the trespassing charge.
The charges in State of North Dakota v. Amy Goodman stemmed from Democracy Now!’s coverage of protests against the Dakota Access pipeline. On Saturday, September 3, Democracy Now! filmed security guards working for the pipeline company attacking protesters. The report showed guards unleashing dogs and using pepper spray and featured people with bite injuries and a dog with blood dripping from its mouth and nose.
Democracy Now!’s report went viral online, was viewed more than 14 million times on Facebook and was rebroadcast on many outlets, including CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC and the Huffington Post.
On September 8, a criminal complaint and warrant was issued for Goodman’s arrest on the trespassing charge.
"These shifting charges were a transparent attempt by the prosecutor to intimidate Amy Goodman and to silence coverage of the resistance to the pipeline," said Reed Brody, an attorney for Goodman. "Fortunately, these bully tactics didn’t work and freedom of the press has prevailed."
The pipeline project has faced months of resistance from the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and members of over 100 other tribes from across the U.S., Canada and Latin America.
Source
|
On October 18 2016 09:14 zlefin wrote:
Lawyers splitting hairs? that would be unheard of! /sarcasm
I won't be convinced comey's wrong unless you put up a pretty strong argument, cuz he defended his case well, and he knows more about the law than you. and so far cannons details also look more thorough.
Danglars is wrong. Like the first article I linked to (see point 2), this second article details why Comey was right not to recommend pursuing criminal charges against Clinton under the Espionage Act.
|
I'm sure that Comey didn't make the decision himself. There's probably dozens of lawyers who helped to review the facts and provided input during the investigation and the ultimate conclusion that was made was not to prosecute. I'm inclined to take the word of the bunch of highly educated professionals doing their jobs with complete information rather than some internet lawyers (those I suppose some of you actually have JD's as you mention so often).
|
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/17/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-lobbyists-state-department/92285652/
The nexus among private companies, Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton family foundations is closer and more complex than even Donald Trump has claimed so far.
While it is widely known that some companies and foreign governments gave money to the foundations, perhaps in an effort to gain favor, one of the key parts of the puzzle hasn’t been reported: At least a dozen of those same companies lobbied the State Department, using lobbyists who doubled as major Clinton campaign fundraisers.
Those companies gave as much as $16 million to the Clinton charities. At least four of the lobbyists they hired are “Hillblazers,” the Clinton campaign’s name for supporters who have raised $100,000 or more for her current White House race. Two of the four also raised funds for Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid.
|
On October 18 2016 09:29 oBlade wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/17/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-lobbyists-state-department/92285652/Show nested quote +The nexus among private companies, Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton family foundations is closer and more complex than even Donald Trump has claimed so far.
While it is widely known that some companies and foreign governments gave money to the foundations, perhaps in an effort to gain favor, one of the key parts of the puzzle hasn’t been reported: At least a dozen of those same companies lobbied the State Department, using lobbyists who doubled as major Clinton campaign fundraisers.
Those companies gave as much as $16 million to the Clinton charities. At least four of the lobbyists they hired are “Hillblazers,” the Clinton campaign’s name for supporters who have raised $100,000 or more for her current White House race. Two of the four also raised funds for Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid.
Well, the two of the four who also raised funds for Clinton's 08 run clearly didn't have anything to do with her State Department tenure. And I'm not super surprised that people who give 100 grand to Clinton have the money to give 16 million to charity, (or that people who give 16 million to the Clinton Foundation would give 100 grand to her campaign) nor that they would pick the Clinton Foundation if they're willing to bankroll her presidential campaign.
In fact, if Trump's charity weren't a scam I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar overlap in his donors.
Is this just someone looking at the old donor list or is there new info here?
|
|
|
NEW YORK ― Can Donald Trump turn voters into viewers?
There have been rumblings for months that the media-obsessed former reality star’s endgame is to launch a media company after the election to capitalize on the support he’s received.
That theory gained more traction Monday as the Financial Times reported that Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner spoke with a boutique media deal-making firm about the prospect of launching a television network. Kushner, who owns the New York Observer, contacted LionTree founder and chief executive Aryeh Bourkoff within the past couple months, according to the paper.
Trump denied last month that he’s had any talks about starting a media company, whether alongside disgraced former Fox News chairman Roger Ailes, who has recently advised him, or other conservative media figures. Ailes reportedly has a non-compete clause that could prevent him from launching a Fox News competitor.
But a source close to Trump told HuffPost the Republican nominee assumes Ailes would be involved in a post-election media venture, presuming that a compensation package large enough would entice him in.
“Trump is saying, ‘I’m not going to give up trying to be president, but just in case it doesn’t happen, I want to have a voice for me and my people ... we will not lose the voice we’ve built,’” the source said.
The Republican nominee often refers to “the stunningly large numbers of persons who voted for me in the primary,” according to the source.
Vanity Fair reported in June on Trump’s media plans and noted that Kushner said at a dinner party how “the people here don’t understand what I’m seeing” and that “you go to these arenas and people go crazy for him.” The New York Times added in August that Trump and Kushner had “quietly explored becoming involved with a media holding, either by investing in one or by taking one over.”
Source
|
On October 18 2016 09:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 09:29 oBlade wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/17/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-lobbyists-state-department/92285652/The nexus among private companies, Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton family foundations is closer and more complex than even Donald Trump has claimed so far.
While it is widely known that some companies and foreign governments gave money to the foundations, perhaps in an effort to gain favor, one of the key parts of the puzzle hasn’t been reported: At least a dozen of those same companies lobbied the State Department, using lobbyists who doubled as major Clinton campaign fundraisers.
Those companies gave as much as $16 million to the Clinton charities. At least four of the lobbyists they hired are “Hillblazers,” the Clinton campaign’s name for supporters who have raised $100,000 or more for her current White House race. Two of the four also raised funds for Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid. Well, the two of the four who also raised funds for Clinton's 08 run clearly didn't have anything to do with her State Department tenure. And I'm not super surprised that people who give 100 grand to Clinton have the money to give 16 million to charity, (or that people who give 16 million to the Clinton Foundation would give 100 grand to her campaign) nor that they would pick the Clinton Foundation if they're willing to bankroll her presidential campaign. In fact, if Trump's charity weren't a scam I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar overlap in his donors. Is this just someone looking at the old donor list or is there new info here?
Dunno, it said #BREAKING.  By two of the four, they mean the four who have raised over $100k for Hillary 2016 so far worked in 2008.
I guess they don't say how many total, but these aren't simple donors, they're people who fundraised for Clinton and lobbied for companies.
|
On October 18 2016 09:46 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 09:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 18 2016 09:29 oBlade wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/17/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-lobbyists-state-department/92285652/The nexus among private companies, Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton family foundations is closer and more complex than even Donald Trump has claimed so far.
While it is widely known that some companies and foreign governments gave money to the foundations, perhaps in an effort to gain favor, one of the key parts of the puzzle hasn’t been reported: At least a dozen of those same companies lobbied the State Department, using lobbyists who doubled as major Clinton campaign fundraisers.
Those companies gave as much as $16 million to the Clinton charities. At least four of the lobbyists they hired are “Hillblazers,” the Clinton campaign’s name for supporters who have raised $100,000 or more for her current White House race. Two of the four also raised funds for Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid. Well, the two of the four who also raised funds for Clinton's 08 run clearly didn't have anything to do with her State Department tenure. And I'm not super surprised that people who give 100 grand to Clinton have the money to give 16 million to charity, (or that people who give 16 million to the Clinton Foundation would give 100 grand to her campaign) nor that they would pick the Clinton Foundation if they're willing to bankroll her presidential campaign. In fact, if Trump's charity weren't a scam I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar overlap in his donors. Is this just someone looking at the old donor list or is there new info here? Dunno, it said #BREAKING. By two of the four, they mean the four who have raised over $100k for Hillary 2016 so far worked in 2008. I guess they don't say how many total, but these aren't simple donors, they're people who fundraised for Clinton and lobbied for companies.
It says it's "BREAKING" but there's no leak or new information posted in it at all and the article seems to imply it's just going over existing information that people aren't aware of. It's actually from public donor list comparisons (sorry I didn't check the source itself).
You also neglected the rest of the article that stated there was absolutely no evidence of quid pro quo, including the fact that some of the lobbyists didn't get what they wanted. So it really does look like filthy rich people that donate to the Clinton Foundation also donate to her campaign...which still seems non-news to me.
It seems like an attempt to chase that one AP story that ended up being a pile of bullcrap.
|
On October 18 2016 09:25 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 09:14 zlefin wrote:
Lawyers splitting hairs? that would be unheard of! /sarcasm
I won't be convinced comey's wrong unless you put up a pretty strong argument, cuz he defended his case well, and he knows more about the law than you. and so far cannons details also look more thorough. Danglars is wrong. Like the first article I linked to (see point 2), this second article details why Comey was right not to recommend pursuing criminal charges against Clinton under the Espionage Act.
In case anyone didn't feel like clicking that lawnewz link, the relevant section would seem to be this one, at least to my non-lawyer eye:
"In 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case [on the 793(f) statute] which challenged whether the phrase “national defense” in this Espionage Law was too vague and overbroad. The answer was no only because:
“we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.”
They go on to talk about the fairly specialized legal meaning of the term "gross negligence," which I won't bother to quote because Danglars' position already appears soundly defeated: there is a Supreme Court decision on the specific section he cites (793(f)), specifically addressing the requirements of that section, and stating that the section requires either intent, or that the defendant had reason to believe the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or to advantage some foreign nation, that is they would have to have acted in bad faith.
I'm no lawyer, but unless someone can find a more recent Supreme Court case that interprets the statute more broadly, it would seem Comey got this one right.
|
On October 18 2016 10:01 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 09:25 kwizach wrote:On October 18 2016 09:14 zlefin wrote:
Lawyers splitting hairs? that would be unheard of! /sarcasm
I won't be convinced comey's wrong unless you put up a pretty strong argument, cuz he defended his case well, and he knows more about the law than you. and so far cannons details also look more thorough. Danglars is wrong. Like the first article I linked to (see point 2), this second article details why Comey was right not to recommend pursuing criminal charges against Clinton under the Espionage Act. In case anyone didn't feel like clicking that lawnewz link, the relevant section would seem to be this one, at least to my non-lawyer eye: "In 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case [on the 793(f) statute] which challenged whether the phrase “national defense” in this Espionage Law was too vague and overbroad. The answer was no only because: Show nested quote +“we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.” They go on to talk about the fairly specialized legal meaning of the term "gross negligence," which I won't bother to quote because Danglars' position already appears soundly defeated: there is a Supreme Court decision on the specific section he cites (793(f)), specifically addressing the requirements of that section, and stating that the section requires either intent, or that the defendant had reason to believe the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or to advantage some foreign nation, that is they would have to have acted in bad faith. I'm no lawyer, but unless someone can find a more recent Supreme Court case that interprets the statute more broadly, it would seem Comey got this one right.
You did a fine job imo. Danglars thinks we're in a "post-constitutional" society though, so your argument will go mostly unaddressed. Here, check out what else people who say similar things believe.
|
|
|
I wonder how those'll turn out; well, it looks like they're investigating it and the issue is known, so being handled well enough I say.
|
Allegations by three people with no further evidence at this point. not much to say till they have more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
