Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Trump Administration Whistleblower Cover-Up

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Since Trump had a history of paying off people for their silence, this can not be reclassified as a campaign finance violation. Past precedent shows he would have paid her off even had he not run for office. Ergo, proving it was a campaign finance violation would be exceedingly impossible.
    Drat. You gave Sam the answer to the question I asked him in the post above.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      Seriously? His campaign was found guilty of massive campaign financing violations and had to pay one of the largest fines ever issued against a presidential campaign by the FEC -- $375,000.

      What sort of comparable fines have been levied against Trump or his campaign.

      And here's something for you to mull over. Why do you think that there is such a startling difference?
      Let me be more clear: I'm not asking a rhetorical question. I'm asking what specifically was the campaign finance violation in order to show how it is distinct from Trump's personal campaign finance violation.

      --Sam
      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        What law or statute is he accused of breaking?

        **Edit to ad** Biden running for President does not make him any more immune to legal scrutiny. To quote Pelosi... "No one should be above the law."
        Well obviously she didn't mean that it should be applied to everyone -- especially anyone with a "D" after their name.

        In the words of Orwell, "Some animals are more equal that others"

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Drat. You gave Sam the answer to the question I asked him in the post above.
          By memory, Michael Cohen testified that the payments were explicitly linked to the election ... which is pretty obvious, given the timeline. Regardless, it's a defense to be made in court that Trump was sufficiently unaware of campaign finance law and/or arranged these payments in the last days of a general election only after Cliffords had threatened to go public unrelated to the campaign.

          But the Obama campaign, let alone Obama himself never came close to this kind of egregious violation. Only the willfully obtuse pretend otherwise.

          --Sam
          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam View Post
            Let me be more clear: I'm not asking a rhetorical question. I'm asking what specifically was the campaign finance violation in order to show how it is distinct from Trump's personal campaign finance violation.

            --Sam
            IIRC in part it was failing to report between 1000 to 1500 large money (over $1000) campaign contributions.

            If you are really curious either Bing or Google can assist you.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam View Post
              By memory, Michael Cohen testified that the payments were explicitly linked to the election ... which is pretty obvious, given the timeline. Regardless, it's a defense to be made in court that Trump was sufficiently unaware of campaign finance law and/or arranged these payments in the last days of a general election only after Cliffords had threatened to go public unrelated to the campaign.

              But the Obama campaign, let alone Obama himself never came close to this kind of egregious violation. Only the willfully obtuse pretend otherwise.

              --Sam
              Relying on Michael Cohen's testimony -- someone who was obviously making it clear he was willing to say anything if it meant leniency for him -- is not exactly convincing.

              If there was anything there then where is the FEC's audit and penalty. Maybe, just maybe, they are more familiar with the case and the law than you are.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” column hit House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) with four Pinocchios Friday for falsely claiming that his panel had “not spoken directly” with the partisan CIA officer behind a so-called “whistleblower” complaint about President Donald Trump.

                https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/...t-false-claim/

                Whoa.

                Usually they bend over backwards excusing such behavior from those on the left. For them to issue four Pinocchios wrt to Schiff's deliberate lie is quite telling.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Relying on Michael Cohen's testimony -- someone who was obviously making it clear he was willing to say anything if it meant leniency for him -- is not exactly convincing.

                  If there was anything there then where is the FEC's audit and penalty. Maybe, just maybe, they are more familiar with the case and the law than you are.
                  Kind of hard to have a ruling when the FEC doesn't even have a quorum anymore.
                  "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Whoa.

                    Usually they bend over backwards excusing such behavior from those on the left. For them to issue four Pinocchios wrt to Schiff's deliberate lie is quite telling.
                    Kessler recently gave Sanders Three Pinocchios for using an accurate figure that WaPo itself had cited earlier.
                    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                      By memory, Michael Cohen testified that the payments were explicitly linked to the election ...
                      By memory, Michael Cohen is a convicted liar who was willing to say anything to save his own skin.

                      Anyway, the precedent here is John Edwards where there was a clear line from a donation to his campaign to a mistress he wanted to keep quiet, but since he had paid off women in the past, the FEC said it wasn't a crime because the action wasn't specific to his campaign. In Trump's case, the money was paid directly out of his own pocket and never touched the campaign coffers, so unlike Edwards, there is no direct line from his campaign to the payments. Even the former chairman of the FEC said the law wasn't violated.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                        52 USC 30121(a): It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value from a foreign national in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.
                        Investigating potentially illegal activity is not a contribution.

                        I can't find any exception if the solicitation concerns acts of fraud.

                        Can you?
                        Campaign finance laws have never been interpreted the way you are trying to do.

                        Also, how did you know there was such an exception without knowing which statue it was an exception to?
                        I knew which one you were inferring, but I find it better to pin you guys down when you are specific in writing.

                        What law or statue is Biden suspected of breaking?
                        US Ethics laws.
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        - Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          By memory, Michael Cohen is a convicted liar who was willing to say anything to save his own skin.

                          Anyway, the precedent here is John Edwards where there was a clear line from a donation to his campaign to a mistress he wanted to keep quiet, but since he had paid off women in the past, the FEC said it wasn't a crime because the action wasn't specific to his campaign. In Trump's case, the money was paid directly out of his own pocket and never touched the campaign coffers, so unlike Edwards, there is no direct line from his campaign to the payments. Even the former chairman of the FEC said the law wasn't violated.
                          The precedent is where an indictment was delivered and the case went to trial but was never judicially resolved?

                          Okay, then. Let's do that. Since Cohen plead guilty to the related charges and since various other parties were involved (National Enquirer, Trump Co. CFO), discovery and testimony should be enlightening.

                          For the record, there was no direct line to campaign finances in Edward's case, either.

                          --Sam
                          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                            Investigating potentially illegal activity is not a contribution.



                            Campaign finance laws have never been interpreted the way you are trying to do.



                            I knew which one you were inferring, but I find it better to pin you guys down when you are specific in writing.



                            US Ethics laws.

                            Yes, coercing an investigation into "potentially illegal activity" can make a resulting investigation a contribution if there's no justifiable predicate for the investigation.

                            So the question: what ethics law is Biden said to have violated and what's the predicate? What's the "credible allegation of wrongdoing" and why isn't DOJ coordinating with Ukraine through its established channels for any resulting investigation?

                            --Sam
                            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                              Always helpful to actually read the statutes you're bold-texting cherry-picked clauses from.
                              It's the CONCLUSION of the bill, Sam.

                              Conclusion

                              The committee believes that it must have access to those
                              employees of the IC who are aware of information, classified or
                              otherwise
                              , exposing corruption, mismanagement, or waste within
                              their agencies or elements. The committee's statutorily
                              established oversight responsibilities cannot be effectively
                              carried out if employees are required to obtain the approval of
                              the heads of their agency before exposing wrongdoing,
                              mismanagement, or waste. H.R. 3829 as reported is an effort to
                              accommodate the critical interests of national security, law
                              enforcement, and foreign affairs and still accomplish that
                              legislative mandate.


                              In this instance, just reading the link you provided would showcase the congressional intent:

                              Source: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/105th-congress/house-report/747

                              Purpose of the Bill

                              H.R. 3829, ``Intelligence Community Whistleblower
                              Protection Act of 1998'' (ICWPA), establishes a new and
                              additional means by which employees of the Intelligence
                              Community (IC) may report to the intelligence committees
                              classified information about wrongdoing.
                              * This bill is intended
                              to protect employees from reprisal and to ensure the proper
                              handling of classified documents and information in the process
                              of reporting wrongdoing. By establishing this additional and
                              protected process, H.R. 3829 is intended to promote the
                              reporting of information to the intelligence committees, which
                              the committees need to perform effectively their oversight
                              role.

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              You would also find this section relatively quickly:

                              Source: Ibid.

                              (6) to encourage such reporting, an additional procedure
                              should be established that provides a means for such employees
                              and contractors to report to Congress while safeguarding the
                              classified information involved in such reporting.

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              And you might also be struck by the use of the word "may" numerous times in reference to reporting to the ICIG. Classified information must lawfully pass through ICWPA in order to avoid other laws against disclosure of classified information but nothing in ICWPA says that an employee must contact ICIG with allegations that do not contain classified information before making those allegations to another party.

                              As I'm frequently saying, gotta be able to both read and understand the legal stuff if you're wanting to make a legal argument ... especially one that's contradicted by the people in charge of enforcing the statute!

                              --Sam

                              *Emphasis added
                              So, you are going to sit there and completely ignore the clear conclusion that blatantly expands the protection to unclassified material too?
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              - Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                Yes, coercing an investigation into "potentially illegal activity" can make a resulting investigation a contribution if there's no justifiable predicate for the investigation.
                                Well, it's a good thing there was and is justifiable predicate.

                                So the question: what ethics law is Biden said to have violated and what's the predicate?
                                The quid-pro-quo. You can't be so ignorant as to not know Biden admitted it....

                                What's the "credible allegation of wrongdoing" and why isn't DOJ coordinating with Ukraine through its established channels for any resulting investigation?

                                --Sam
                                Oh, you mean like the Attorney General working with Ukraine to reopen the investigation that got prematurely closed? Oh, that's right... Trump had suggested that on the phone call.
                                That's what
                                - She

                                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                60 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                244 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                106 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                322 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X