'I think I’d take it': In exclusive interview, Trump says he would listen if foreigners offered dirt on opponents
'I think I’d take it': In exclusive interview, Trump says he would listen if foreigners offered dirt on opponents
'I think I’d take it': In exclusive interview, Trump says he would listen if foreigners offered dirt on opponents originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
President Donald Trump may not alert the FBI if foreign governments offered damaging information against his 2020 rivals during the upcoming presidential race, he said, despite the deluge of investigations stemming from his campaign's interactions with Russians during the 2016 campaign.
Asked by ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in the Oval Office on Wednesday whether his campaign would accept such information from foreigners -- such as China or Russia -- or hand it over the FBI, Trump said, "I think maybe you do both."
"I think you might want to listen, there isn't anything wrong with listening," Trump continued. "If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent' -- oh, I think I'd want to hear it."
(MORE: EXCLUSIVE: Trump reveals historic redesign of Air Force One)
President Trump made the remark during an exclusive interview with ABC News over the course of two days, wherein Stephanopoulos joined the president on a visit to Iowa and back to Washington for a day inside the White House.
Trump disputed the idea that if a foreign government provided information on a political opponent, it would be considered interference in our election process.
(MORE: Mueller report highlights: Read the top moments from the 448-page report)
"It's not an interference, they have information -- I think I'd take it," Trump said. "If I thought there was something wrong, I'd go maybe to the FBI -- if I thought there was something wrong. But when somebody comes up with oppo research, right, they come up with oppo research, 'oh let's call the FBI.' The FBI doesn't have enough agents to take care of it. When you go and talk, honestly, to congressman, they all do it, they always have, and that's the way it is. It's called oppo research."
President Trump lamented the attention on his son, Donald Trump Jr., for his role in the now-infamous Trump Tower meeting in June 2016. Stephanopoulos asked whether Trump Jr. should have taken the Russians' offer for "dirt" on then-candidate Hillary Clinton to the FBI.
(MORE: After Mueller report exposed Russian interference 'roadmap,' is US ready for 2020?)
"Somebody comes up and says, ‘hey, I have information on your opponent,' do you call the FBI?" Trump responded.
"I'll tell you what, I've seen a lot of things over my life. I don't think in my whole life I've ever called the FBI. In my whole life. You don't call the FBI. You throw somebody out of your office, you do whatever you do," Trump continued. "Oh, give me a break – life doesn't work that way."
(MORE: A Mueller report guide to collusion: What is it and what could we still learn?)
"The FBI director said that is what should happen," Stephanopoulos replied, referring to comments FBI Director Christopher Wray made during congressional testimony last month, when he told lawmakers "the FBI would want to know about" any foreign election meddling.
But on Wednesday, the president refuted Wray's sentiment.
"The FBI director is wrong, because frankly it doesn't happen like that in life," Trump said. "Now maybe it will start happening, maybe today you'd think differently."
Tune in next week for an hour-long ABC News special, only on ABC — including "ABC News Live," the 24/7 streaming news channel available on abcnews.com, Roku, Hulu, Amazon Fire TV and Apple TV.
Of course he would! The shitstain did it before and he will do it again.
Looking at the history of what Democrats have done trying to dig up dirt on their opponents, crying about a time honored political ploy practiced by both parties is laughable.
It is not against the law for foreign governments to try to influence the outcomes of other countries elections. Just look at all those foreign donors into Hillary's "Foundation"! The Obama administration openly and blatantly tried to influence the election in Israel.
What good would telling the FBI do, since from all appearances, that agency was doing the best that IT could to influence the election in favor of Hillary.
There is no real evidence that the Russians actually and really interfered in the 2016 election, although some claim they did. Dirtbag Hillary lost because she was a corrupt and nasty old bitch.
The Clinton foundation is not a pay to play or scam like any/all of the Rump's crime family syndicates.
What is "What a Russian Bot would say?"...
It really is amazing to me what kind of bullshit some people are willing to believe in an effort to support this piece of filth commander in-competent.
Once again Greg I am asking for links proving that accepting election assistance from foreign countries is a common occurrence.
Now, based on historical evidence, I am expecting 1 of 2 possible responses from you:
'What is "What a Russian Bot would say?"...
I think they've infiltrated Newstalkers. The obvious suspects that is.
Prove it!
Do you really, honestly, think that all those "donations" coming to Hillary from foreign individuals and governments went directly into her "foundation"?
'Once again Greg I am asking for links proving that accepting election assistance from foreign countries is a common occurrence.
Now, based on historical evidence, I am expecting 1 of 2 possible responses from you:
or 3. Prove it!
I would not doubt it. They have infiltrated most every other type of media and sites on the Internet and NT would not be alone if indeed they were here. Money rules, and makes the sheeple drool.
Mueller report stated clearly that they did. 99% of the members of congress says they did. All of our intel agencies said that they did. Literally the only person that says they DIDN'T is trump. If you are taking trumps words over all these other people, I seriously, no joke, feel sorry for you
But you can never say just how they interfered. Influencing opinion is not anywhere close to interfering.
The Clinton Foundation.
This organization has earned a GuideStar's Platinum Seal of Transparency by voluntarily sharing the measures of progress and results they use to pursue their mission. Organizations earn Platinum Seals by selecting from a catalog of over 900 expert recognized metrics or by creating a new metric that best fits their work. This information is reported by the organization and displayed publicly on their GuideStar Nonprofit Profile. With over 1.6 million Nonprofit Profiles, 9 million annual visitors and over 200 data partners, GuideStar is the world's leading source of information about nonprofit organizations. A nonprofit itself, GuideStar is dedicated to providing better data for better decisions for a better world.
It's an A+ rated charity, Greg.. Maybe time to get off the fake news right wing web sites.
The Trump Foundation.
On September 13, 2016, The New York Times reported on the operations of Donald J. Trump Foundation, a charity that has announced intentions to dissolve, in an article titled, "New York Attorney General to Investigate Donald Trump’s Nonprofit." For this reason, we have issued a High Concern CN Advisory . For more information, please see The New York Times article.
On November 22, 2016, The Washington Post published an article titled, "Trump Foundation admits to violating ban on 'self-dealing,' new filing to IRS shows." For more information, please see The Washington Post article.
On December 24, 2016, The Trump-Pence Transition Team issued a press release titled, "President-Elect Donald J. Trump Intends to Dissolve the Donald J. Trump Foundation." For more information, please see The Trump-Pence Transition Team press release.
On December 24, 2016, The Washington Post published an article titled, "Donald Trump plans to shut down his charitable foundation, which has been under scrutiny for months." For more information, please see The Washington Post article.
On November 20, 2017, The Washington Post published an article titled, "Trump golf course reimbursed President Trump’s charity amid ongoing investigation into the foundation." For more information, please see The Washington Post article.
On November 21, 2017, TIME published an article titled, "President Trump Is Officially Dissolving His Charitable Foundation." For more information, please see the TIME article.
On June 14, 2018, the New York State Office of the Attorney General issued a press release titled, "Attorney General Underwood Announces Lawsuit Against Donald J. Trump Foundation And Its Board Of Directors For Extensive And Persistent Violations Of State And Federal Law." For more information, please see the New York State Office of the Attorney General press release.
On August 22, 2018, CNN published an article titled, "New York tax investigators subpoena Michael Cohen in Trump Foundation probe." For more information, please see the CNN article.
On August 31, 2018, PBS News Hour published an article titled, "New York’s attorney general says Trump Foundation bankrolled political campaign, pursues lawsuit." For more information, please see the PBS News Hour article.
On October 4, 2018, NPR published an article titled, "New York AG Presses Forward With Suit Against Trump's Charitable Foundation." For more information, please see the NPR article.
On October 25, 2018, The Star published an article titled, "No one wanted Trump’s portrait. So his charity had to buy it for $10,000, lawyer says." For more information, please see The Star article.
On November 23, 2018, The New York Times published an article titled, "New York State’s Lawsuit Against Trump Foundation Can Proceed, Judge Rules." For more information, please see The New York Times article.
On December 18, 2018, CNN published an article titled, "Trump Foundation agrees to dissolve under court supervision." For more information, please see the CNN article.
On February 11, 2019, CNN published an article titled, "Trump Foundation says NY AG's comments show lawsuit is political." For more information, please see the CNN article.
On February 27, 2019, CNN published an article titled, "Michael Cohen testifies that Trump paid for portrait with Trump Foundation funds." For more information, please see CNN article.
On March 14, 2019, The Washington Post published an article titled, "NY attorney general: Evidence shows Trump misused charity." For more information, please see The Washington Post article.
On May 19, 2019, The New York Times published an article titled, "Deutsche Bank Staff Saw Suspicious Activity in Trump and Kushner Accounts." For more information, please see The New York Times article.
You can't even donate to trumps "charity" because it's been shut down for FRAUD, (shocking....said no one ever.
...
In essence greg, you are calling the Clinton foundation what the trump foundation actually is. FRAUD.
or 4. Deflection! (i.e. But Hillary!)
One way we know for sure, was deceptive ads on FB.
How much do big business's spend on advertising? Billions... If influencing an opinion has no effect, why would they spend so much money on trying to do so?
Weird huh?
Either way, it's not everyone else that is wrong, it's trump, and he has a motive to lie about it.
What donations. Again all you do is make up comments which are nothing but trolling or taunting
More make believe on your part
Greg, both Donald Trump and his son Eric were forced to suspend and close their respective foundations for suspicion of influence peddling and other questionable donation practices.
Donald Trump used his foundation to pay off personal civil suits. The one thing that burned my butt was when he used $30,000 of his foundation's money to purchase 6-foot-tall painting of himself, which he then hung in the lobby of Trump Tower. He also used foundation money to purchase tens of thousands of dollars in sports memorabilia. There are reputable accounts of foundation shenanigans all over the internet. I'm surprised that you are so unaware of them.
On a different note, you are aware that Hillary Clinton can't hurt you any more...right? It's a point you might want to ponder.
[deleted]
Ok, now that one was funny.. not your usual. good one.
You get the 'early bird' star for first whataboutism HILLARY!
The ultimate in irony is that Trump donated to the Clinton Foundation.
[deleted]
By "we all" you mean all except for the FBI, Republican House Committee that investigated her, Justice Department, and every American that believes in the Constitution and rule of law?
Well said. I completely agree. It’s Hillary and Obama who really were traitors to America.
And when did he do it before? Did I miss that in the witch hunt results?
As has been stated several times already, as well as being widely reported... The Mueller report said that while the trump campaign did not seek out help from russia, it did accept help from russia when it was offered, (which is a felony).
Yeah. Ok
And deporables will defend this POS
Yes, see below.
It amazes me that people who pretend to be patriots support Trump welcoming foreign interference in our elections.
Until Trump got elected, I had no idea how many Americans despise our country and our constitution, and prefer idolatry of their orange hero to patriotism.
40% or whatever the turd's approval rate is, is a frightening number.
I have no problem with opposition research. It's another matter to deal in illegally obtained information like Jr and Kushner were looking for when they went to the Trump Tower meeting.
If that was illegal why didn’t mueller charge them?
As I said the information they were looking for was illegally obtained. Fortunately for Trump's family the Russians they talked didn't actually have that information.
Plus it was not in his purview to bring charges for fucks sake.
He very well could have in that situation had something illegal actually have happened. Nothing did. Jr is now being accused of perjuring himself to Congress about that meeting. I don't know why he thought he would have to lie about, if he did. Unless he did think he had done something wrong...
Thanks for the heads up. I didn't know that.
(deleted)
what would be the crime?
first, they were not told the promised information was “illegally obtained”
Second. newspapers publish illegally obtained material all the time. Why wasn’t roger stone charged by mueller with trying to obtain illegally obtained information?
You have to remember this:
Hiring a company that hires foreign nationals to get dirt on your political opponent: perfectly fine if it is a GOP opponent.
Listening to a foreign national who might have dirt on your opponent: unacceptable if the dirt is on a Democrat.
See, you keep forgetting about that old double standard!
Shame on you!
Morning evilgenius
I thought Jr. was testifying to see if he perjured himself regarding Cohen having briefed him (like 10 times) on the Russia Trump Tower proposal that was being floated supposedly well into the president first year in office...?
Joseph Mifsud told George Papadopoulos about hacked Clinton emails. Papadopoulos told Trump Sr and other campaign officials. Shortly after the guy that called Trump Jr saying a Russian lawyer had incriminating information on Clinton and wanted to meet. Spin it any way you want they thought they were getting hacked dirt.
And sources have gone to jail for it. Many, many people have gone to jail for the possession of hacked information.
Apparently simply TRYING isn't a crime.
Mifsud never mentioned emails. He testifed under oath that he didn't, and Mueller obviously didn't indict him.
Apparently simply TRYING isn't a crime.
But it is. It would be a conspiracy to commit a crime even if they had ultimately failed to succeed.
From the Mueller Report -
It would be a conspiracy to commit a crime even if they had ultimately failed to succeed.
Well you thought wrong, didn't you dear?
Nope, I did this crazy thing called research ..
Have a nice day...
What was his purview?
Don't let the door hit ya . . .
Accepting information, (or just about anything), gained through in illegal act, (like hacking), is a crime. I know you know that, but not sure about others.
I'm not sure you even understand what "purview even means.
You stated a 'fact' that you garnered in your research as a question. Why?
Oh and BTW, your research misses the mark. Trump signed a letter of intent with a Russian investment company to acquire property for 'Trump Tower Moscow' in Oct. 2015 WHILE he was running for POTUS and denying that he had any irons on the fire in Russia.
It appears that the only thing illegally obtained were the FISA warrants.
That same old same old fucking nonsense is so fucking tiresome.
It's all he has.
No, as AG Barr will explain to us before long. The FISA warrants were obtained with untrue and unverifiable informatiion. Being in perpetual denial doesn't change the truth.
Didn't you say the same thing when Nunes' House committee was investigating them? Do you think they changed between then and now?
Indictments? Charges? Prison sentences? Any proof at all from a source that ISN'T a trump surrogate? Nope.
Another made up story of your fairy tales
At long last, has Trump no shame? No dignity? No decency?
Has he ever had any? His personal, business and political history indicates that he has never had any, and at this point, chance are he never will.
Watch the Clinton voters feign outrage at trump admitting he’d do what Clinton did.
More make believe from Sean
Quite the scene to watch that...
Let's see....Trump admits he'd listen to another country that says they have dirt about an opponent...everyone is aghast!
Hillary and DNC pay for dirt on Trump from another country...media and anti-Trumpers dance and cheer!
Nope...nothing to see here! LMAO
Nailed it!
No, she didn't.
[deleted]
To you, it seems to be given your denial that Russia tried to influence our election process, despite the mountains of evidence.
Non-allies of the USA, Russia and China? They are not our friends.
Allies of the USA, not enemies, like China and Russia.
HUGE difference that you seem to have overlooked.
I see, Steele was chosen by Fusion GPS because he was a 'good' guy who had contacts with Russian 'bad' guys...so that's far enough removed to 'overlook'. Got it.
No, again, you don't got it!
Where do you get these lies?
Which brilliantly wasn't release until after the election. /s
Doesn't matter anymore. China is setting up infrastructure and trade throughout the world. Russia is ramping up its agriculture output for world trade. Mission accomplished.
The "When you're a star you can do anything," president skates on solid ice. He in invulnerable.
He in invulnerable.
Ya got that right....almost.
FOUR MORE YEARS
As the old saying goes, "Be very careful what you wish for, you just might get it." And it may not be what you thought you were getting.
[deleted]
Indeed. The white nationalist Germans were excited at the prospect of Hitler gaining power and showing the world German strength, see where that got them. The white nationalists here in America are doing the same having been seduced by Trumps promises of American greatness with the message white nationalists love to hear of "taking back" their supposed nation from those they see as "foreign invaders" who are really just new immigrants wanting the same thing those white nationalists ancestors did when they first came to these shores. It's rather sad to see such joy exhibited from such a vile worthless ideology as white nationalism being pursued and seemingly gaining ground.
'Unlimited and unregulated immigration...bringing with it all kinds of unskilled people would end up being a drain on society, bringing with them heaven knows what kind of disease, vermin, and insects from parts unknown, and of course lots of criminals of all types including MS-13.'
Is that you Stephen Miller?
Totally into conspiracy theories I see.
Perhaps, but it seems unlikely.
Hey, you are the one that is still saying Russia didn't try to influence our election process, (despite everyone but trump saying it DID happen).
The fact that the white supremacists in America are on the rise feeling emboldened by Trump is not a theory. The fact that those white supremacists support the Trump agenda is not a theory.
It must be a strange upside down reality that some live in where the constant lies and bullshit about Hillary, from pizza parlor sex rings to supposed assassinations of staffers are considered fact while the very real rise of white supremacy in America and in the Republican party is labeled as fiction because it's simply too inconvenient for the right wing to face. If they actually turned to face that part of their party and told the white supremacists to get the F out of their party they know they would lose nearly all the power they desperately cling to so they prefer to lie to themselves. If they keep repeating the same lie, they hope everyone will eventually believe it, perhaps even themselves.
Excellent info, thanks for that...
Every day feels like years in Trump world. ...
you will be ok
Aw, shucks Sunshine, thanks.
I think he's right as the scenario is presented. It would be different if we were talking about illegally obtaining information, but if it's just information, I don't know why a foreign source should automatically prompt someone to call the FBI. What's the difference if you get your news from NBC or the BBC? Who cares if your "man on the street" lives in New York or Moscow? We live in a global information network. We get news and information from around the world on a daily basis.
Furthermore, I have seen no evidence that any politician is running away from foreign sources of opposition research and calling the FBI to report it. Heck, the dossier on Trump that justified a FISA warrant came from a foreign source and the Clinton campaign was more than happy to use it.
[deleted]
Depends on diplomatic status... If it's from an enemy or adversarial county, I think going to the FBI is what should be done.
That could be a tough line to draw. Some countries will be fairly obvious - like if we're at war or we don't have an embassy there or something. But if we have regular friendly contact, conduct lots of trade, our citizens and theirs visit the two countries pretty freely . . . can that be an adversary?
I think if you have reason to be believe a representative of a government - any foreign government (friend or foe) - is sticking its nose in an election, it certainly can't hurt to give the FBI a heads up. But if Joe Blowski from Moscow emails you some dirt? I don't know. What if he's from France? Tokyo?
And in any case, should this preclude you from repeating the information? What about passing it on to the New York Times?
I see a hell of a lot of hypocrisy in the sanctimonious judging of the use of information. The news networks are all clutching their pearls over Trump's remarks, but let's be real. They have never cared one little bit where salacious news comes from. They will publish anything that gets ratings.
So let's get straight that the scenario is that a country like Russia, China or North Korea offered this alleged 'dirt'.
So do you ask the aforementioned countries or their 'nationals' if it's 'illegally obtained' or do you 'take a look' at it first and THEN ask?
Oh and one more question on that, why the fuck would you believe what they told you, either about the legality of how the information was obtained OR the veracity of the information they provided?
The question is, WHO do they represent and what are their vested interests, NOT where reports it or where they live...
Oh please DO tell me all about how the Clinton campaign used the Steele dossier. Please post a link on one of the in depth reports about the Clinton campaign releasing the Steele dossier.
I kind of doubt that if someone broke the law to obtain information, they would just admit it.
Why would that matter? If some random foreigner comes to you with information (assuming you have no reason to think it was acquired illegally) do you ignore it because he's a government employee? What if he's just a private citizen? What if it's the Crown Prince of Bumfuckistan and he tells [insert name of politician running for election] about something he saw on Al Jazeera because he guesses (correctly) that the American politician doesn't watch Al Jazeera?
When does the simple passing of information become something we would consider either morally or criminally wrong?
So the whole BS about 'illegally obtained' is irrelevant isn't it?
First of all, if that information is about my POLITICAL opponent; I don't accept it, I would tell the fucker to bugger off and I would call the FBI, just as Director Wray said I should.
It's illegal and anyone who would offer said information is making an overt attempt at compromising who they are making the offer to and anyone who accepts it is too much of an idiot to hold office.
What part of the whole representing and vested interest thingy don't you understand?
That information is in the public domain and the question is unworthy... Try harder.
Whether it's 'legit' or not is besides the point.
That's like saying that you're immune to prosecution because you hired a hit man that was an undercover cop.
No. It depends on whether possession of such material will be criminal if it's knowingly received as illegal or if it's a strict liability standard.
Reread the scenario. You have no way of knowing that.
Actually, it doesn't. Whether the information is obtained illegally or NOT, if it from a 'foreign national' it is illegal to solicit, accept or receive that information. PERIOD full stop.
What an American politician watches is irrelevant to whether it's in the public domain or not. Al Jazeera is an international news network whose content is shared by other media all over the world. So whatever the Crown Prince of Bumfuckistan saw on his telly is public domain.
I agree with the president. There is no authority for Congress to legislate against this as long as it’s not from a Congressionally passed and presidentially signed declaration or resolution that of a specific nation deemed an enemy of the United States.
should the Dems pursue this, Trump should take it all the way to the Supreme Court.
It is a felony, Larry, to use anything of value, (including information), to win an election in the USA that is obtained from a foreign national.
PERIOD.
Nope. And any such laws would be unconstitutional. There is no authority in the Constitution for any such laws by Congress.
BTW, neither Pelosi or Senator Warner seem to agree with you. They want new legislation to make it a crime.
Should they do so, Trump should veto it
Ok, how? I just posted the law, if you do not agree with it, fine, call your congressman.
Where? I don’t see any such thing. Why should it make where you get negative information from about an opposition candidate?
if it’s true or false, let voters decide for themselves
[deleted]
You are aware that this country has laws OTHER than what's in the constitution, right?
Foreign nationals
Campaigns may not solicit or accept contributions from foreign nationals . Federal law prohibits contributions, donations , expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed , received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local. This prohibition includes contributions or donations made to political committees and building funds and to make electioneering communications . Furthermore, it is a violation of federal law to knowingly provide substantial assistance in the making, acceptance or receipt of contributions or donations in connection with federal and nonfederal elections to a political committee, or for the purchase or construction of an office building. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, acting as a conduit or intermediary for foreign national contributions and donations.
A person acts knowingly for the purposes of this section when he or she has:
Pertinent facts that satisfy the “knowing” requirement include knowledge of:
The fact that you disagree with it, means literally nothing.
Your usual nonsense. That makes no sense, as usual.
We want control over your sex life? and abortion? Or we don't want control over your sex life and abortion?
You forgot to add Marxist, Statist, Socialist
52 USC 30121 : Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
_____________________________
§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title ); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22 , except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8 ) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8 .
( title III, §319, formerly §324, as added title I, §112(2), May 11, 1976, ; renumbered §319, title I, §105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, ; amended title III, §§303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, , 109 .)
Codification
Section was formerly classified to section 441e of Title 2 , The Congress, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
Prior Provisions
A prior section 319 of was renumbered section 314, and is classified to section 30115 of this title .
Another prior section 319 of was renumbered section 318, and was classified to section 439b of Title 2 , The Congress, prior to repeal by .
Amendments
2002 - §303(1), substituted "Contributions and donations by foreign nationals" for "Contributions by foreign nationals" in section catchline.
Subsec. (a). §303(2), added subsec. (a) and struck out former subsec. (a) which read as follows: "It shall be unlawful for a foreign national directly or through any other person to make any contribution of money or other thing of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution, in connection with an election to any political office or in connection with any primary election, convention, or caucus held to select candidates for any political office; or for any person to solicit, accept, or receive any such contribution from a foreign national."
Subsec. (b)(2). §317, inserted "or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8 )" after "United States".
Effective Date of 2002 Amendment
Amendment by effective Nov. 6, 2002, see section 402 of set out as an Effective Date of 2002 Amendment; Regulations note under section 30101 of this title .
............
Happy now? SMH
So you have first hand knowledge [deleted?]
And I would challenge the Constitutionality all the way to the Supreme Court.
we have thousands upon thousands of totalitarian laws that need to be repealed
I made it clear Dems only apply liberty to sex and allowing abortions. Everything else they want to contro or prohibit by laws including taxes and regulation
not all totalitarian governments are Marxist or socialist.
All Statism is totalitarian
pall Marxist and/or socialist (including social democracies) are totalitarian because they require forced statist collectivism
So why shouldn't liberty be applied to someone's sex life?
Who should control people's sex lives?
There are regulations on abortion and nothing you can do about it 'pastor'
You would?
For serious?
You’re still missing my point. I’m not advocating for regulating or controlling people’s sex lives.
im contending that the only liberties the left cares about are sex and abortion
as to abortion, science says its murder, but is currently considered legal because of SCOTUS. It’s still a crime against humanity
[deleted]
Absolutely. The Constitution does not give that power to Congress.
explain why it matters where opposition information comes from if it’s factual
if you want to consider it interfering in an election, then it’s interfering no matter the source.
Removed for context
So you are admitting I was right in the first place. Thanks.
Makes no sense at all.
Have a super day.
So you don't believe in protecting the USA from foreign agents that would do us harm...got it. I'll look for you on the news.
That's a strawman argument XD.
Nobody said 'foreign information' yet you pretend to quote it and then ask MrFrost to defend it.
Of course you 'spiced' that with snark.
Well done...
I did read it XD. Yes I see that both 'foreign' and 'information' are in that comment. Yet as you highlighted in bold, they weren't used TOGETHER, were they XD?
So you constructed a strawman. Own it.
It would behoove you to recognize that felony is to receive something of value from a foreign national. WHERE that thing of value originated is irrelevant. WHO it came from is.
LFOD’s comment you quoted is right on and 100% correct. I proudly identify with and endorse his comment as if I’d written it myself.
Nice post. A very valuable contribution to this seed.
Without a doubt.
Duh, it's already a felony and the law is there for you to read
Just for shits and giggles LFOD, WTF are you talking about?
If the Congress has no authority to legislate, HOW does it become 'Congressionally passed and presidentially signed?
I keep hearing sad attempts at equivalence between accepting a foreign governments aid if they called and said they had dirt on your opponent versus hiring a citizen in a foreign country to research your opponents possible ties to that foreign country. Are conservatives completely blind to the difference here?
In one case, no one is "offering" opposition research to a campaign with the implication that in exchange for this dirt the candidate will treat the offering nation favorably when they win the election. Instead you have a private British citizen, Chris Steele, who is an expert in another countries (Russia) foreign policy and illicit activities, hired to research the apparent ties between a campaign and an enemy foreign government that had over 140 meetings with Russian operatives and pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs.
In the other case you actually have numerous enemy foreign agents offering illegally obtained dirt on a political opponent who have determined that this candidate will treat them more favorably than the other. You have an enemy foreign government using its resources (at least $1.25 million a month during the campaign) to run fake social media ads and campaigns specifically to help Trump win which reach over 120 million Americans. You have an enemy foreign government publicly releasing illegally obtained private American citizens stolen emails in an effort to help Trump win.
"I'm from Russia. ... My question will be about foreign politics. If you would be elected as a president, what will be your foreign politics especially in relationship with my country? And do you want to continue the politics of sanctions that are damaging of both economy [sic] or do you have other ideas?" - convicted Russian spy Maria Butina
"I believe I would get along very nicely with Putin, OK? And I mean, where we have the strength, I don't think you'd need the sanctions." - Donald Trump in response.
“President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?” - Reporter in Helsinki
“Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.” - Putin
Those trying so hard to make a false equivalence between the two should really be ashamed of themselves and how pitifully weak their ignorant argument is and the fact that by defending, deflecting and distracting from the facts they are giving aid and comfort to our enemies, and Putin couldn't be happier about their support.
'President Trump gave a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question.'
More Rumpsplanations.
Yawn.
If trump ate a live human baby on TV, I am sure the excuse would be, "well, it's a hypothetical baby".
They will stand on their heads and spit wooden nickels to excuse this PoS's repulsive behavior.
I knew somebody would post this story.
So, here is my take on it:
First, Trump does have the right to listen to any government or foreign leader he feels is relevant.
Second, Fox News was wrong to think that the Stephanopoulos interview was a set up. It was reasonable
Third, Chris Como over at CNN is wrong to interpret this as the President condoning criminal conduct.
Last but not least, the real issue I had with the interview - Who the hell allowed Stephanopoulos to be hovering over the President of the United States?
If it was Sanders, then I'm glad she's leaving.
I am sure he was there with permission Vic...
Of course he was there with permission, but the Communications Director or the Press Secretary dictates the decorum of an interview. You never let a reporter or journalist stand over a seated President as questions are being asked.
Why not just put any blame where it belongs. With trump himself. We all know he does what ever he wants.
Do you expect him to be on his knees next to trump? Or maybe sitting on a chair across the room?
If there is any bad optics blame the one that allowed it to happen.
It is always someone else at fault when it comes to trump and his supporters.
Did the 5'7" George Stephanopolous, who looks like he weighs about 140 pounds, physically intimidate President* Trump? That would be a pity.
CORRECTION
The BING search engine lists Stephanopolous height as 5'5 ".
You're just mad that I beat you to it Vic.
So the lying fat cow Sanders is leaving?
When?
At the end of the month. She is returning to Arkansas, where it is speculated that she will run for Governor, like her Father did.
Oh what fun that will be. /s
[deleted]
Didn't CNN report it?
Farewell strong woman. You did well under fire!
By admittedly lying to the American people.
By having to deal with decadent morons who have destroyed the integrity of American journalism
Bye Felicia! You lying fat cow bitch!
So you don't mind her lying to the American public but how dare the press ask questions....
It's mind boggling, isn't it? Anything to defend Trump and his toadies ... screw our country and our constitution.
I recall them trying to debate her....Since when does giving ones ideological view constitute a question?
Contrast the press conferences she was subjected to with those that Josh Earnest got to enjoy.
You can direct your comments to me, I'm still here
So in other words, they should just shut up and take her lies and not question them.
Who many of those were on the road outside of the WH?
In straight talk they should act like journalists. I have no problem, as I said, with Stephanopoulos questions the other day. I have serious objections to what people like Jim Acosta were allowed to get away with.
So again, it is the journalists fault. I have not heard you once condemn Sanders lying.
The two things are not equal are they? If the White House Press Secretary truly lies about anything it reflects badly on the administration.
If the press corps is openly hostile to the administration, where it lies or it engages in an ideological diatribe against the administration it not only destroys the credibility of the national media but it is a betrayal of the public trust. We depend on the media to keep their personal beliefs out of it. When the people can no longer trust the media, we really are in trouble.
So you don't believe she lied, even though she admitted it.
This administration has been openly hostile to the press, repeatedly.
Why don't you give us the lie that you keep reciting?
This administration has been openly hostile to the press, repeatedly.
Why not just admit that the msm ie: The New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN has lied to the American people for over 2 years about this President? There was no collusion was there?
Why not admit that they tried to defeat this President from the day he won the GOP nomination right up until the day he won the Presidential election?
Why not admit that they most likely did more damage to Trump than Russia ever did to Hillary Clinton?
Why not admit that the timely release "Access Hollywood Tape" by the Washington Post was supposed to torpedo any chance he had at becoming President?
But, But, But you want to blame Trump for the hostility ?
On Trump's side, any hostility is justified!!!
So the Mueller report where she admitted she lied is a lie?
Just wow.
You act like everything the has been reported about trump is the fault of the press and actually it is. Should they hide stories or bury them? Did trump not say the things in the tapes?
His hostility is no where near justified when they report on his actual character.
trump damages himself every time he opens his mouth.
You seem to be under the impression that the press should only publish feel good stories about your dear leader.
How dare they report about an actual investigation.
" Sanders was caught lying in the special counsel Robert Mueller’s report. After Trump’s firing of the FBI director James Comey, Sanders attempted to cast the decision in a positive light, saying she had heard from “countless members of the FBI” that they had no confidence in him . But speaking under oath to Mueller’s team she admitted that the sentiment “was not founded on anything” .
That was just one of many lies and deceptions expressed by this cowardly bag of shit press secretary. I guess one can't blame her for being a bag of shit considering she had to try and be the metaphorical adult diaper for this incontinent incompetent joke of a President.
I can only think that with the attacks on Mueller now, they all think that he is the liar.
That they believe trump's lies and bullshit unquestioningly says as much about them as it does trump.
Do you know if that is what Ender is talking about?
We have recently discovered that Mueller hid exculpatory evidence on McGahn's statements
This is a new one on me. Gotta link for that?
I'd be hard pressed if I was the Press Secretary to define the one actual reason that Comey was fired, so many reasons were given. The fact is that no reason is necessary and in Comey's case, he should have been fired on day 1
And we are not going to talk about the media, right?
It's all fake news according to the turd when the press tells the truth about him.
Got it!
She was paid 186k a year to lie to your face, and you are giving her praise? Really?
Why? He threw the election to trump, I would think that would make you more than happy.
Well said Vic.
It's easy to see that Trump allowed him to do so.
I'm sure that's how the turd wanted it. Him seated at the throne and Stephanopoulous 'hovering'.
What do you think, the turd is royalty or something?
"There is no education in the second kick of a mule"
Mr. Trump would be well served to take the advice of his majority leader Mr. McConnell in this particular case.
Stephanopoulos asked a loaded question and Trump provided a blunt answer. The press doesn't know how to handle that; especially from a politician. The gottcha journalism practiced by Stephanopoulos kinda backfired.
Notice that the press isn't talking about Trump? The topic of opinion journalism is impeachment which places the media spotlight on Democrats. What will it take for Democrats to impeach Trump? How can Pelosi keep stonewalling?
The other topic du jour for the media bloviators and influence peddlers is about foreign influence in politics which places the media spotlight on all of political Washington. The entertainment value comes from watching the political deadwood try to dissimulate their own long history of 'oppo' campaigning. Everyone does it; no one is supposed to talk about it.
Trump's blunt answer has shifted the media spotlight onto everyone else. Trump didn't answer a loaded question with political double speak. Trump is shining too much light into the political sludge pit of Washington and everyone sitting in their butt embossed chairs are running scared.
Are you auditioning for Sarah Sanders recently vacated job?
I'm not defending Trump. Trump's answer does require any interpretation, speculation, or analysis. There isn't anything for the unbiased press to spin, twist, or propagandize.
The only thing the unbiased press can do is focus attention on Democrat's stonewalling impeachment and political Washington squirming over foreign influence in politics.
The most telling part of that interview wasn't a question from Stephanopoulos. It was a reaction to a STATEMENT made by Stephanopoulos:
To which Trump replied:
Which motivated the FEC Chairwoman to release a statement which highlights Trump's ignorance:
Why contact the FBI? The State Dept. is responsible for handling foreign relations, not the FBI. The diplomatic corps is supposed to issue warnings to foreign countries, not the FBI.
The FBI can only take legal action against the candidate. Foreign diplomats and registered agents are outside the FBI's jurisdiction. What's the FBI going to do about it?
Does that prohibition against receiving anything of value extend to foreign news organizations? If a BBC reporter gives Joe Biden information, should Biden contact the FBI? What would that accomplish? How far will the 'value of information' be twisted?
The current interpretation is that opposition research constitutes a "thing of value" as per the statute. Personally, I think that's extreme for the very reason you mention.
Because it is a CRIME.
Again, it is a crime, not a question of foreign policy.
Actually, if the candidate reports the contact, there would be NO 'legal' action against him/her.
I suggest that you read the 34 indictments of Russians for answers on that.
Yes.
If the information is something of value in the election, yes.
If the BBC reporter informed Biden that his fly was unzipped, no.
Well first of all, it would be complying with the law. Second of all it would give our IC a heads up.
HOW valuable the election information is, is irrelevant. That a 'foreign national' offered the election information is enough to trigger the statute.
If only you were there to tell Bob Mueller how the law works!
It's more complicated than your drastic oversimplification that. Per Mueller:
"At the same time, no judicial decision has treated the voluntary provision of uncompensated opposition research or similar information as a thing of value that could amount to a contribution under campaign-finance law. Such an interpretation could have implications beyond the foreign-source ban, see 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a) (imposing monetary limits on campaign contributions), and raise First Amendment questions. Those questions could be especially difficult where the information consisted simply of the recounting of historically accurate facts. It is uncertain how courts would resolve those issues
I didn't have to be Sean.
Oh the fucking irony.
It certainly is more complicated Sean, but you are the one that posted a 'drastic oversimplification' and misleadingly so.
Do you think you're making a cogent point by posting ONLY the last half of the last paragraph of that section?
Since so few have actually read the Mueller report, I'll post the rest of that section in full.
A threshold legal question is whether providing to a campaign "documents and
information" of the type involved here would constitute a prohibited campaign contribution. The
foreign contribution ban is not limited to contributions of money. It expressly prohibits "a
contribution or donation of money or other thing of value." 52 U.S.C. § 3012l(a)(l)(A), (a)(2)
(emphasis added). And the term "contribution" is defined throughout the campaign-finance laws
to "include[]" "any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value."
52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i) (emphasis added).
The phrases "thing of value" and "anything of value " are broad and inclusive enough to
encompass at least some forms of valuable information. Throughout the United States Code, these
phrases serve as "term[ s] of art" that are construed "broad[ly]." United States v. Nilsen , 967 F .2d
539, 542 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) ("thing of value" includes "both tangibles and intangibles ");
see also, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 20l(b)(l), 666(a)(2) (bribery statutes) ; id. § 641 (theft of government
property). For example, the term "thing of value" encompasses law enforcement reports that
would reveal the identity of informants, United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69, 71 (2d Cir. 1979);
classified materials, United States v. Fowler, 932 F.2d 306 , 310 (4th Cir . 1991); confidential
information about a competitive bid, United States v. Matzkin, 14 F .3d 1014, I 020 (4th Cir. 1994);
secret grand jury information, United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 680 (6th Cir . 1985); and
information about a witness's whereabouts, United States v. Sheker , 618 F.2d 607 , 609 (9th Cir.
1980) (per curiam). And in the public corruption context , " ' thing of value' is defined broadly to
include the value which the defendant subjectively attaches to the items received." United States
v. Renzi, 769 F.3d 731,744 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations recognize the value to a campaign of at
least some forms of information, stating that the term "anything of value " includes "the provision
of any goods or services without charge," such as "membership lists" and "mailing lists. " 11
C.F.R. § 100.52(d)(l) . The FEC has concluded that the phrase includes a state-by-state list of
activists. See Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. FEC, 475 F.3d 337, 338
(D.C. Cir. 2007) (describing the FEC 's findings) . Likewise , polling data provided to a campaign
constitutes a "contribution. " FEC Advisory Opinion 1990-12 (Strub) , 1990 WL 153454 (citing 11
C.F.R. § 106.4(6)). And in the specific context of the foreign-contributions ban, the FEC has
concluded that "election materials used in previous Canadian campaigns ," including "flyers,
advertisements, door hangers , tri-folds, signs, and other printed material ," constitute "anything of value," even though "the value of these materials may be nominal or difficult to ascertain ." FEC
Advisory Opinion 2007-22 (Hurysz), 2007 WL 5172375, at *5.
These authorities would support the view that candidate-related opposition research given to a campaign for the purpose of influencing an election could constitute a contribution to which the foreign-source ban could apply. A campaign can be assisted not only by the provision of funds, but also by the provision of derogatory information about an opponent. Political campaigns frequently conduct and pay for opposition research. A foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money or tangible things of value.
THEN comes the last half of the paragraph which you saw fit to post. So 4 paragraphs of legal argument and citations on how a 'Thing-of-value Element' could be argued and HALF A PARAGRAPH stating that there is no precedent case and it would be a difficult question for the court.
That is the most disappointing comment I have ever seen you post Sean.
Do you not understand your own posts?
You are the one who made the simplistic pronouncement that the behavior IS a crime. You failed to even hint at the complexity of the issue or to even address Mueller's position, though you claim to have read the Mueller report. You were just happy to mislead everyone with a declaration of fact that you cannot support, and knew was not an accurate representation of the law.
My point was that the issue is , and I quote, "more complicated than your drastic oversimplification." I then cited the paragraph where Mueller concludes that is "UNCERTAIN how courts would resolve those issues" which is the point I was making. Did I make a categorical claim like you did and claim it could never, ever be considered a crime? If I had, then you would have a point. But I didn't. So you don't.
All you did was provide a fuller account of the arguments whose conclusion I summarized. since the conclusion is the only relecvant point, your "gotcha" is worthless and just another desperate attempt to distract from your own mistakes.
Do you have any shame? You know, if you are being honest, that I'm correct. This is not an open and shut issue and, as Mueller and I argue, it is uncertain how the Courts would handle it. Yet you accuse me of being misleading for posting the only honest conclusion, that its uncertain how the Court would handle this. Truly shameful behavior on your part.
The crime is to receive something of value from a foreign national in connection with a US election. The jurisdiction of the FBI only extends to the candidates.
No. What triggers the statute is soliciting, accepting, or receiving anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. And solicitation, acceptance, or receipt is a crime committed by the candidate.
So, if a candidate accepts information concerning an opponent from a foreign national Al Jazeera reporter who overheard something from the opposing campaign, that would technically violate the statute. If a British reporter publishes insider information on BBC, then opposing candidates utilizing that information would technically violate the statute.
It IS a crime Sean.
The comment that I replied to didn't mention the Mueller report Sean so WHY are you INSISTING that I should address it?
I just DID support it with the 'law' Sean and so did Mueller but you truncated that from your comment. You're the one who posted a misleading comment Sean. Own it.
No, you merely did what you claimed I did. You posted a quote that 'drastically oversimplified' the facts as cited in the Mueller report.
My point isn't based on anything you claimed Sean. It's based on your intentional trucation of the Mueller report's statements on the 'Thing-of-value element' to mislead members that it bolsters your agenda.
Bullshit.
Where did you summarize this Sean?
Please link your comment in this thread that contains ANYTHING close to that Sean?
Please link my 'mistakes' Sean...
What am I supposed to feel shame for Sean?
I AM being honest and you are being personal. But hey, it's your MO.
Well Mueller and I are arguing that there is a plethora of legal authority that support it being ruled as a violation of 52 USC 30121. So there...
You pretend that is a revelation. It isn't. EVERY SCOTUS ruling is uncertain.
BTFW, characterizing what you quoted from the report as a 'conclusion' is misleading Sean. It's the last half of the last paragraph and is the ONLY part of the analysis of the subject that suggests that Campaign Finance law would not allow a successful prosecution. That's ONE HALF of ONE paragraph in the MIDDLE of an 8 page analysis on Campaign Finance Sean.
Even more disappointed to see you devolve to 'I'm rubber, you're glue'.
solicit:
ask for or try to obtain (something) from someone.
Doesn't mean they got what they asked for.
Nope. That's getting information from the 'public domain'. The BBC is an INTERNATIONAL news network whose content is shared by media all over the world.
The 'president' and his corrupt cabinet of gangsters, thugs, grifters, and thieves, are the 'political sludge pit of Washington'
trump is the ultimante troll... LOL
now that the left has bashed the idea of "would accept dirt" on an opponent?
what ground will the left stand on when it is proven some other people paid foreigners for dirt on him?
and when it is proven our govt was in on it will there be any ground left? I don't think so.... LOL
the left has been jumping around from issue to issue playing the short game.... they forgot the long game.
cheers