US Election 2020

[Forty Two]

You are pushing this as simply the freedom of expression of foreign nationals (like individual's comments on social media), where the reality is a concerted effort by a foreign government to advance their own interests by manipulating (legally or illegally) the political processes in the US. I wouldn't be comfortable with that...

Let's focus here.

Manipulating the political processes by doing what, exactly? Publishing memes? Organizing rallies?

If you're talking about something else, like doing something to change vote counts, voter fraud, that kind of thing, I'm all with you - that's almost an act of war. If there is some foreign donation of money to a political campaign, then sure, that's a big problem. I agree with you there. But, the "manipulation" referred to is publishing, writing, speaking, saying things.

But, let's say in August of 2020, President Obrador sees that his country would be better off without Trump, and with the leading Democratic Candidate. Let's say, Beto O'Rourke. They like Beto. Beto said he would tear down the walls between the US and mexico and at least as a matter of physical barriers, open the border. They like that. So, the Mexican government decides to buy Facebook ads saying how terrible walls are and how they are evil and immoral, and that Mexico supports no walls, and Mexico wants the American government to do the same, so don't vote for wall-proponents.

Has Beto done something wrong? What should the American government do about it? I would say that they can send the diplomats over and tell Mexico to cool it. We could impose sanctions on them. But we wouldn't go to war over it, would we? We wouldn't really do much more of anything, would we? Isn't that what we did with Russia?

And, what if Beto got a call from a former Mexican prosecutor. The former prosecutor says to Beto's rep, "hey, you know, we have lots of dirt on Trump - we can get you proof Trump cheated on his taxes, and is actually cheating on Melania now." Beto's rep says "Fuck yeah! If it's true, I like it!" And, a Beto rep meets with the former Mexican prosecutor and a couple of other folks "linked" to the Mexican government. The information is true, and Beto is informed of how the info is obtained and he uses it in the campaign.

Should Beto go to jail? Has he or someone in his campaign done something immoral? illegal?

For me, I would say quite equivocally, under the scenario presented - no. In fact, Mexico has done a service to America there, getting information out that is relevant - Trump broke the law and lied on his taxes, and he's cheating on Melania now - says something about him.

But, was Beto, in your view, obligated to keep the information secret, and only report it to the FBI? And, would the Mexicans possibly have committed a crime? What crime? Was something they did "immoral?" Under what system of morality?

[Tero]

Yeahbut Beto and Mexico did not do that. Russia did. Check mate!

[Tero]

WASHINGTON—Promising that they had learned their lesson and would not fall into the same traps they did in the last presidential election cycle, the U.S. populace vowed Wednesday not to repeat the errors of 2016, while, at the same time, nearly every American voter continued to use the internet. “We’re not going to make those mistakes again—not in 2020, not ever,” said Cleveland resident Jerry Van Buskirk, one of 328 million U.S. residents who still spends hours each day scrolling through various social media platforms and consuming either news tailored by algorithms to magnify his pre-existing biases or outright disinformation aimed at duping him. “We refuse to allow a clickbait-driven journalism industry that privileges scandal and controversy over facts and nuance to shape our discourse. Our democracy is too important.” At press time, sources confirmed the nation had taken to social media to spread its message.

The Onion

[Tero]

Biden would easily beat Trump:
A new poll by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic polling firm out of North Carolina, found that every potential Democratic candidate in the 2020 presidential election—announced and unannounced—would beat President Trump in a head-to-head contest. Former Vice President Joe Biden, who has not announced a presidential bid, came in the lead out of the Democratic hopefuls, with 53 percent of poll participants choosing him compared to 41 percent for Trump. Trump trails Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders by 12 points and California Senator Kamala Harris by 7 points. Harris officially announced her 2020 campaign on January 21, raising $1.5 million in online contributions in only 24 hours. Rounding out the pack of potential Democratic candidates was former representative Beto O’Rourke (TX), as well as senators Elizabeth Warren (MA), Cory Booker (NJ), and Kirsten Gillibrand (NY).
https://www.thedailybeast.com/poll-ever ... mp-in-2020

I am not at all sure the numbers in the 40s have much meaning

[L'Emmerdeur]

I'd say that such polls at this stage have no genuine significance.

[Tero]

Only in that Biden would be the safe bet. A good 50% of Democrats can only claim to be familiar with one other candidate.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Let's focus here.

Manipulating the political processes by doing what, exactly? Publishing memes? Organizing rallies?

Stealing private communications and publishing them strategically to maximise the political harm inflicted. A broad effort to impersonate American social media users and disseminate false information as well as divisive memes and attacks across multiple platforms.

If you're talking about something else, like doing something to change vote counts, voter fraud, that kind of thing, I'm all with you - that's almost an act of war. If there is some foreign donation of money to a political campaign, then sure, that's a big problem. I agree with you there. But, the "manipulation" referred to is publishing, writing, speaking, saying things.

As if that would have no effect. Or maybe it's something that should just be accepted, because after all the right candidate benefitted.

But, let's say in August of 2020, President Obrador sees that his country would be better off without Trump, and with the leading Democratic Candidate. Let's say, Beto O'Rourke. They like Beto. Beto said he would tear down the walls between the US and mexico and at least as a matter of physical barriers, open the border. They like that. So, the Mexican government decides to buy Facebook ads saying how terrible walls are and how they are evil and immoral, and that Mexico supports no walls, and Mexico wants the American government to do the same, so don't vote for wall-proponents.

Russia did not follow that playbook though. Yes, Russian propaganda outlets were definitely pro-Trump and anti-Clinton, but as for buying ads in US media online or otherwise, I don't recall any noticeable official presence by the Russian government: no overt and upfront campaign.expressing support such as you describe. Your attempted parallel fails here.

In addition, I know you probably still refuse to believe that the hacking was carried out by Russian intelligence agencies but that is in fact what the evidence shows, according to the US intelligence community. You can jump up and down shouting 'no evidence! no evidence!!' but they didn't arrive at the conclusion that they did based on fairy tales. What it comes down to is that you personally find the publicly available evidence unconvincing.

The hacking was a criminal act, and Russians have been indicted for it. You don't mention any illegal acts on the part of Mexico, apparently because of your continued insistence that the Russians had nothing to do with the hacking, but as long as you ignore this aspect of interference, it's another failure of your attempted parallel.

Has Beto done something wrong?

According to this false, idealized parallel in which Mexico's involvement was completely upfront and legal and there is not even a hint that Beto's campaign was involved with Mexico's effort, no, Beto did nothing wrong.

What should the American government do about it? I would say that they can send the diplomats over and tell Mexico to cool it. We could impose sanctions on them. But we wouldn't go to war over it, would we? We wouldn't really do much more of anything, would we? Isn't that what we did with Russia?

And, what if Beto got a call from a former Mexican prosecutor. The former prosecutor says to Beto's rep, "hey, you know, we have lots of dirt on Trump - we can get you proof Trump cheated on his taxes, and is actually cheating on Melania now." Beto's rep says "Fuck yeah! If it's true, I like it!" And, a Beto rep meets with the former Mexican prosecutor and a couple of other folks "linked" to the Mexican government. The information is true, and Beto is informed of how the info is obtained and he uses it in the campaign.

Should Beto go to jail? Has he or someone in his campaign done something immoral? illegal?

Given that Beto's campaign didn't pay for the intelligence, which is undeniably of considerable value, it's a campaign contribution. Accepting a campaign contribution from a foreign national is a crime under U.S. Title 52 § 30121.

For me, I would say quite equivocally, under the scenario presented - no. In fact, Mexico has done a service to America there, getting information out that is relevant - Trump broke the law and lied on his taxes, and he's cheating on Melania now - says something about him.

But, was Beto, in your view, obligated to keep the information secret, and only report it to the FBI?

Beto or his representative should have reported the contact to the FBI when it first occurred, rather than encouraging the Mexican to deliver the intelligence. Once the campaign has agreed to accept the intelligence and taken delivery, it has violated U.S. Title 52 § 30121.

And, would the Mexicans possibly have committed a crime? What crime? Was something they did "immoral?" Under what system of morality?

Again, refer to U.S. Title 52 § 30121.

[JimC]

[Tero]

Trump’s Secret to Victory in 2020: Hispanic Voters
Yes, it’s true: The man who wants to build a wall to keep out immigrants is winning over just enough Latinos to get re-elected. Unless Democrats figure out how to stop him.

Many expected Hispanics to vote overwhelmingly against Trump in 2016. A Latino Decisions poll just before the election found Trump with support of just 18 percent of Hispanics. But the actual figure was 28 percent, which—given Trump’s incendiary rhetoric about immigrants—some analysts and pundits refused to believe from exit polls until further studies confirmed it. That was essentially just as good as Mitt Romney, as the 2012 Republican nominee, did with Hispanics—and it was enough to help Trump squeak to an Electoral College victory.

From:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ump-225192

[Forty Two]

If you're talking about something else, like doing something to change vote counts, voter fraud, that kind of thing, I'm all with you - that's almost an act of war. If there is some foreign donation of money to a political campaign, then sure, that's a big problem. I agree with you there. But, the "manipulation" referred to is publishing, writing, speaking, saying things.

As if that would have no effect. Or maybe it's something that should just be accepted, because after all the right candidate benefitted.

To me, it doesn't matter if "the right" or "the left" candidate benefited. Some things must be accepted, including foreign individual's right to express their opinion on domestic elections, and even say nasty things. And, by the way, the intelligence reports say that several candidates benefited, not just one.

If we are referring to speaking, writing, publishing, etc., almost every non-American on this forum attempted to interfere witha the election when they published their views on this forum.

But, let's say in August of 2020, President Obrador sees that his country would be better off without Trump, and with the leading Democratic Candidate. Let's say, Beto O'Rourke. They like Beto. Beto said he would tear down the walls between the US and mexico and at least as a matter of physical barriers, open the border. They like that. So, the Mexican government decides to buy Facebook ads saying how terrible walls are and how they are evil and immoral, and that Mexico supports no walls, and Mexico wants the American government to do the same, so don't vote for wall-proponents.

Russia did not follow that playbook though. Yes, Russian propaganda outlets were definitely pro-Trump and anti-Clinton,

They were both, according to the intelligence report(s) you rely on.

but as for buying ads in US media online or otherwise, I don't recall any noticeable official presence by the Russian government: no overt and upfront campaign.expressing support such as you describe. Your attempted parallel fails here.

No, it doesn't because the fact that there was no noticeable official presence of the Russian government makes the case against Russia weaker than the one I painted against Mexico.

In addition, I know you probably still refuse to believe that the hacking was carried out by Russian intelligence agencies but that is in fact what the evidence shows, according to the US intelligence community.

You can jump up and down shouting 'no evidence! no evidence!!' but they didn't arrive at the conclusion that they did based on fairy tales. What it comes down to is that you personally find the publicly available evidence unconvincing.

Neither one of us has actually seen any of the available evidence, since it wasn't published. Also, the notion that US intelligence agencies don't (a) get it wrong, and (b) sometimes get it wrong on purpose, is naive. Further, the described/published reasons to conclude that Russia tried to hack include the statement that Russia was trying to do the same thing to both major parties, and lobbying groups and other prominent organizations related to the upcoming campaigns starting way back in 2015. They weren't just trying to hack one side's stuff, says the intelligence report. They claim that Guccifer was a Russian intelligence asset, but the evidence is weak.

However, hacking - if it occurred - is illegal, and can rise to the level of an act of war. The thing about the hacking, though, is that what Russia was doing isn't any different than what the US, UK, France, Germany, China, etc. all do. The US is very likely the country with the most access to hacked materials.

The hacking was a criminal act, and Russians have been indicted for it. You don't mention any illegal acts on the part of Mexico, apparently because of your continued insistence that the Russians had nothing to do with the hacking, but as long as you ignore this aspect of interference, it's another failure of your attempted parallel.

The hacking was a criminal act, and they should be indicted for it and convicted if proven.

Now, the hacking itself, however, does not make it wrong that we know about that emails. In the line of the Pentagon Papers, the theft is the crime. The distribution and the fact that the public becomes aware of it is not. Learning about stolen truth is a good thing for elections, not a bad thing. Like, if the Russians hacked Trump's computers and found out he was selling state secrets to the highest bidder. The Russian hackers committed a crime, but if wikileaks or the NY Times got the material dropped on their doorstep, then distributing the material is in the national interest, and even if it wasn't - even if it was, say, information exposing that the US intelligence community was staging things down in Venezuela - then the publishing of the material is still good, even if the theft is bad.

Has Beto done something wrong?

According to this false, idealized parallel in which Mexico's involvement was completely upfront and legal and there is not even a hint that Beto's campaign was involved with Mexico's effort, no, Beto did nothing wrong.

O.k., good - then at least we are in agreement on most of the Russian "meddling" allegations - that they were not illegal or meddling.

On the hacking allegations, i think we are in agreement that the actions of hacking are illegal and should be prosecuted. Let's see what the proof is, which should be available in a public trial, in my view. And, if, indeed, the Russian government was involved, then that's a big problem diplomatically.

However, the real lesson to be learned from this, in my view, is that both major parties need to be more careful about what they're doing. The reason anyone cared about what was in the email exchanges that were released by Wikileaks is that it revealed shady things. The email releases only hurt Clinton because of what the emails revealed, which was not endearing - it was not information that made anyone think it would be a good idea to vote for Clinton. And, if similar information were released about Trump, I would say the same thing. Good that we know it.

What should the American government do about it? I would say that they can send the diplomats over and tell Mexico to cool it. We could impose sanctions on them. But we wouldn't go to war over it, would we? We wouldn't really do much more of anything, would we? Isn't that what we did with Russia?

And, what if Beto got a call from a former Mexican prosecutor. The former prosecutor says to Beto's rep, "hey, you know, we have lots of dirt on Trump - we can get you proof Trump cheated on his taxes, and is actually cheating on Melania now." Beto's rep says "Fuck yeah! If it's true, I like it!" And, a Beto rep meets with the former Mexican prosecutor and a couple of other folks "linked" to the Mexican government. The information is true, and Beto is informed of how the info is obtained and he uses it in the campaign.

Should Beto go to jail? Has he or someone in his campaign done something immoral? illegal?

Given that Beto's campaign didn't pay for the intelligence, which is undeniably of considerable value, it's a campaign contribution. Accepting a campaign contribution from a foreign national is a crime under U.S. Title 52 § 30121.

That's not how the law is interpreted. It is not correct that someone bringing candidate X dirt on candidate Y is a campaign contribution, except where candidate Y pays one or more dollars for the information?

Think of how such an interpretation of the law, which has never been adopted by any court, by the way -- think of what that would mean. If Democrat X's campaign got a call from Isabella Nachez, a maid Mar-a-Lago, with information that she is an undocumented worker and that she and 20 others are illegally employed there, and that Trump personally knows about it, and doesn't care -- that would be an illegal foreign donation? How much would Democrat X have to pay for it before it wasn't? And, then how would they send a campaign rep down there to talk to Mar-a-Lago workers and get their stories? They'd have to pay each worker for their story? How much?

Here's a good analysis - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 9f28ad8972

For me, I would say quite equivocally, under the scenario presented - no. In fact, Mexico has done a service to America there, getting information out that is relevant - Trump broke the law and lied on his taxes, and he's cheating on Melania now - says something about him.

But, was Beto, in your view, obligated to keep the information secret, and only report it to the FBI?

Beto or his representative should have reported the contact to the FBI when it first occurred, rather than encouraging the Mexican to deliver the intelligence. Once the campaign has agreed to accept the intelligence and taken delivery, it has violated U.S. Title 52 § 30121.

I disagree. I do not think that there would be any violation of the law under that scenario. Beto doesn't know the information was gained illegally. There is nothing "illegal" about negative information about people. And, information - people talking - is not a "thing of value" within the meaning of the statute (at least there is no court ruling to that effect - no criminal prosecution ever to that effect. And, if you think that "information" and "dirt" on candidates is something new, then I have to respectfully disagree.

And, would the Mexicans possibly have committed a crime? What crime? Was something they did "immoral?" Under what system of morality?

Again, refer to U.S. Title 52 § 30121.

In Bluman v. FEC, the federal district court in D.C. upheld the ban against a constitutional challenge, in a decision that was later affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The district court emphasized the narrow scope of the statute, saying that it “does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues” but only prevents them from “providing money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.”

And, note, complaints were filed with the FEC by Common Cause and other groups - the FEC did not determine that any campaign finance violation occurred or any illegal contribution occurred.

Note, “contribution” under the law includes “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office . . .” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(a).

Now - I get your view of it. The language of the law is written very broadly with the "thing of value" inserted after "contribution or donation." However, I do not believe a court will interpret the law to include mere dirt and negative information as a "thing" equivalent to a "contribution" or "donation" or a "gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money....." -- under ejusdem generis, a list of things followed by an open ended "other things...." is read to close the loop at things that are "of the same kind."

Also, first amendment/freedom of speech comes into play when you're talking about making it illegal for, as I noted, an undocumented worker to sit down with a Bernie Sanders campaign worker and laying out his or her story of abuse and oppression while working on Trump projects. And, your broad interpretation of the statute would encompass exactly that person.

Good response L'Emmerdeur. By juxtaposing my posts on this with yours, we have illustrated the two sides on this issue of receiving information from foreign sources.

[Tero]

Quid Pro Quo

[L'Emmerdeur]

As if that would have no effect. Or maybe it's something that should just be accepted, because after all the right candidate benefitted.

To me, it doesn't matter if "the right" or "the left" candidate benefited. Some things must be accepted, including foreign individual's right to express their opinion on domestic elections, and even say nasty things. And, by the way, the intelligence reports say that several candidates benefited, not just one.

If we are referring to speaking, writing, publishing, etc., almost every non-American on this forum attempted to interfere witha the election when they published their views on this forum.

The intelligence reports say that 'several candidates benefited,' eh? Cite your source. From what I've read, in regards to the presidential election the Russian influence campaign was focussed on helping Trump and denigrating Clinton, though there was also a minor sideline in boosting Jill Stein.

The Russian government employed a sizable team to impersonate Americans and disseminate its false and divisive posts on major social media platforms. Your attempt to dismiss this by equating it to a few people engaging in discussion on a quiet online forum is absurdly disingenuous. It seems to me that for you it really does come down to 'they helped the candidate that I liked, so what's the big deal?'

But, let's say in August of 2020, President Obrador sees that his country would be better off without Trump, and with the leading Democratic Candidate. Let's say, Beto O'Rourke. They like Beto. Beto said he would tear down the walls between the US and mexico and at least as a matter of physical barriers, open the border. They like that. So, the Mexican government decides to buy Facebook ads saying how terrible walls are and how they are evil and immoral, and that Mexico supports no walls, and Mexico wants the American government to do the same, so don't vote for wall-proponents.

Russia did not follow that playbook though. Yes, Russian propaganda outlets were definitely pro-Trump and anti-Clinton,

They were both, according to the intelligence report(s) you rely on.

Again, cite your source. Both RT and Sputnik had an obvious pro-Trump, anti-Clinton bias.

Four of the officials said the approach outlined in the June strategy paper was a broadening of an effort the Putin administration launched in March 2016. That month the Kremlin instructed state-backed media outlets, including international platforms Russia Today and Sputnik news agency, to start producing positive reports on Trump’s quest for the U.S. presidency, the officials said.

...

Russia Today and Sputnik published anti-Clinton stories while pro-Kremlin bloggers prepared a Twitter campaign calling into question the fairness of an anticipated Clinton victory, according to a report by U.S. intelligence agencies on Russian interference in the election made public in January.
report

Russia Today’s most popular Clinton video - “How 100% of the 2015 Clintons’ ‘charity’ went to ... themselves” - accumulated 9 millions views on social media, according to the January report. https://www.facebook.com/RTAmerica/vide ... ebook link

The report said Russia Today and Sputnik “consistently cast president elect-Trump as the target of unfair coverage from traditional media outlets.”

[source]

but as for buying ads in US media online or otherwise, I don't recall any noticeable official presence by the Russian government: no overt and upfront campaign.expressing support such as you describe. Your attempted parallel fails here.

No, it doesn't because the fact that there was no noticeable official presence of the Russian government makes the case against Russia weaker than the one I painted against Mexico.

Are you seriously claiming that if Russia had been buying advertisements in American media to overtly support Trump, that would have been more effective than what it actually did?

In addition, I know you probably still refuse to believe that the hacking was carried out by Russian intelligence agencies but that is in fact what the evidence shows, according to the US intelligence community.

You can jump up and down shouting 'no evidence! no evidence!!' but they didn't arrive at the conclusion that they did based on fairy tales. What it comes down to is that you personally find the publicly available evidence unconvincing.

Neither one of us has actually seen any of the available evidence, since it wasn't published.

We know that the US intelligence agencies in part used the evidence brought forward by private cybersecurity firms. That evidence is publicly available, contrary to your assertion.

Also, the notion that US intelligence agencies don't (a) get it wrong, and (b) sometimes get it wrong on purpose, is naive. Further, the described/published reasons to conclude that Russia tried to hack include the statement that Russia was trying to do the same thing to both major parties, and lobbying groups and other prominent organizations related to the upcoming campaigns starting way back in 2015. They weren't just trying to hack one side's stuff, says the intelligence report.

It goes beyond that. According to reports, the Russians were successful in hacking the Republicans but none of what they obtained was ever published.

They claim that Guccifer was a Russian intelligence asset, but the evidence is weak.

Apparently you feel qualified to pass judgment on the strength or weakness of the evidence without having seen it. OK then.

However, hacking - if it occurred - is illegal, and can rise to the level of an act of war. The thing about the hacking, though, is that what Russia was doing isn't any different than what the US, UK, France, Germany, China, etc. all do. The US is very likely the country with the most access to hacked materials.

Your position is still a staunch denial that Russia was responsible for the hack, correct?

According to this false, idealized parallel in which Mexico's involvement was completely upfront and legal and there is not even a hint that Beto's campaign was involved with Mexico's effort, no, Beto did nothing wrong.

O.k., good - then at least we are in agreement on most of the Russian "meddling" allegations - that they were not illegal or meddling.

You can't help misrepresenting what I've said, can you?

Given that Beto's campaign didn't pay for the intelligence, which is undeniably of considerable value, it's a campaign contribution. Accepting a campaign contribution from a foreign national is a crime under U.S. Title 52 § 30121.

That's not how the law is interpreted. It is not correct that someone bringing candidate X dirt on candidate Y is a campaign contribution, except where candidate Y pays one or more dollars for the information?

The law is clear. Your wibbling about 'interpretation' is irrelevant.

It shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make 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.

U.S. Title 52 § 30121

Volokh is a free speech advocate, not an authority on federal campaign finance law.

Beto or his representative should have reported the contact to the FBI when it first occurred, rather than encouraging the Mexican to deliver the intelligence. Once the campaign has agreed to accept the intelligence and taken delivery, it has violated U.S. Title 52 § 30121.

I disagree. I do not think that there would be any violation of the law under that scenario. Beto doesn't know the information was gained illegally.

You're attempting to ignore the legal issue here. From a campaign finance law perspective, it's irrelevant whether the opposition research product was obtained illegally or not. The issue is that the opposition research is being donated by a foreign national.

There is nothing "illegal" about negative information about people. And, information - people talking - is not a "thing of value" within the meaning of the statute (at least there is no court ruling to that effect - no criminal prosecution ever to that effect. And, if you think that "information" and "dirt" on candidates is something new, then I have to respectfully disagree.

Campaigns regularly pay for opposition research, so clearly it is a thing of value. Your claim that there has never been a criminal prosecution of a foreign national donating opposition research to a campaign is unsupported and irrelevant.

The rest of your post is an attempt to apply a ruling in a case that doesn't bear on the actual question of whether opposition research donated to a campaign by a foreign national is a violation of federal campaign law, with a further personal opinion from you. Again, opposition research is undeniably a 'thing of value,' and the law prohibits a foreign national from donating a thing of value to a political campaign in the US. Whether you find these facts objectionable or not is irrelevant.

[Tero]

YeahbutTrump. Trump maybe wants to win. But his strategy is mainly to campaign, to make his presidency look legitimate. And he will never change racist anti foreigner strategy.

[Forty Two]

As if that would have no effect. Or maybe it's something that should just be accepted, because after all the right candidate benefitted.

To me, it doesn't matter if "the right" or "the left" candidate benefited. Some things must be accepted, including foreign individual's right to express their opinion on domestic elections, and even say nasty things. And, by the way, the intelligence reports say that several candidates benefited, not just one.

If we are referring to speaking, writing, publishing, etc., almost every non-American on this forum attempted to interfere witha the election when they published their views on this forum.

The intelligence reports say that 'several candidates benefited,' eh? Cite your source.

Here's one -- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 348051002/ Refers to the indictment, which is based on the intelligence.

From what I've read, in regards to the presidential election the Russian influence campaign was focussed on helping Trump and denigrating Clinton, though there was also a minor sideline in boosting Jill Stein.

And Bernie Sanders. And, there were about 3500+ advertisments taken out by the Russians -- only 100 of those dealt with either support for Trump or opposition to Clinton.

A federal grand jury in February indicted 13 individuals accused of working for the Internet Research Agency to produce the ads. The charges related to meddling in the 2016 election, the only election interference case Mueller's office has filed so far.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 ... 602319002/

The Russian government employed a sizable team to impersonate Americans and disseminate its false and divisive posts on major social media platforms. Your attempt to dismiss this by equating it to a few people engaging in discussion on a quiet online forum is absurdly disingenuous. It seems to me that for you it really does come down to 'they helped the candidate that I liked, so what's the big deal?'

It's not - go read the USA Today article which reviewed the 3500 social media ads that the Russians engaged in. Most voters didn't see them. They are almost in every case more of a "meme"than an ad, and they are quite obvious horse shit - bush league stuff.

I don't think they helped anyone, in actual effect. They're stupid, and most didn't even mention Trump or Clinton.

And, it has nothing to do with which candidate I liked. I would feel the same way about them if they supported Clinton. Who cares? And, besides, what are we going to do about it? Facebook can't place ads from people posting them? Facebook is supposed to know who is "linked" to the Russian government? All it takes is one guy to set up "People for the Future, Inc." and buy an ad. What the hell is supposed to be done about that?

And, do we even want someone to do something about that? To me, no. Because I know what it means for the government to be able to silence publication, and I don't trust the State with that power, and I would keep as much of that power out of the hands of the State as possible. The rich and powerful will just use those laws to silence truthful revelation of embarrassing or even criminal facts.

If Trump's tax returns are leaked to Wikileaks in some way, I want Wikileaks to publish them. I'll say that right now. I don't care if someone breaks into Mar-a-Lago and burgles paper copies from Trump's top right desk drawer. Sure, the burglar should do time, but if he drops it on the New York Times doorstep, or Wikileaks doorstep, then publish the fuck out of it.

And, if Mexicans want to set up ad-buying companies and put memes and organize "Americans Against Trump" - go for it. The US government can take diplomatic action, and do what needs to be done that way. But, to open a 2 year special prosecution against the winning Democrat candidate? Because someone offered some dirt to the winning campaign?

I can say right now - I would be just as opposed to it.

I resent your implication that the only reason I find the Mueller prosecution a problem, and the only reason I question the vague reports about "interference," is because I am pro-Trump. That's not in any way in line with my views expressed on this forum.

[Forty Two]

YeahbutTrump. Trump maybe wants to win. But his strategy is mainly to campaign, to make his presidency look legitimate. And he will never change racist anti foreigner strategy.
4523A67D-15A1-4D8E-BFC8-3735E56C83A6.jpeg

You're funny, Tero.

More than 100 GOP donors gathered...

"Several" (unnamed, of course) left the meeting dissatisfied...

...because, apparently, they were expecting to have the President's reelection strategy made public at this meeting, and since it wasn't, they think he doesn't have one.

Read carefully, "This account is based on interviews with nearly a dozen people connected to Trump’s reelection, including two donors who attended the retreat and other Republican contributors who’ve given to Trump in the past. " So, it was only two (2) of the more than 100 donors who attended the retreat who were used to "base" the article, saying that their worried. The 8 or 9 other people (nearly a dozen, lol - nearly? The reporter couldn't say the number?) were people "connected" to Trump's reelection. Not in the campaign - not high ranking officials -- people "connected" to them. LOL.

Reporter speak. The account is "based on" interviews - meaning it's not quoting them or even paraphrasing them - the reporter is using their interviews and has written an article "based on" a true story. And, most of the people interviewed were not at the event - they were people "connected" to the campaign.

But based on the interviews, the campaign plainly has work to do to assuage at least some of the Republican donor class, which he will need to finance a massive campaign infrastructure that he lacked in 2016.

Based on interviews of 2 donors, and several people "connected" to the campaign - the campaign "plainly" has "work to do to assuage SOME" GOP donors. Uh.... wow ... breaking news! Campaign has work to do! Some number of donors are concerned about the campaign, and think it has work to do! Can't be... we must have campaigns that have zero concerned donors. Other candidates have zero concerned donors, and nobody would be "concerned" that Bernie or Harris have "work to do" to "assuage at least some" Democrat donors....

Several donors who regularly contribute to Republican presidential candidates and the political groups supporting Trump said his campaign didn’t learn from its mistakes during the 2018 midterm elections, when Republicans lost control of the House and suffered other defeats nationwide.

ORLY!? Several donors? You said you interviewed 2, not several. So, some of the information is coming from others "connected" with the campaign reporting second hand that some other donors think Trump didn't learn from his mistakes.

Next, the article says that Trump relied mostly on small donations in 2016, and also his own money, moreso than large GOP donors. The large GOP donors, now, think Trump must "assuage" them, unless he wants to do the same thing as he did in 2016, which they think is a mistake. The donors. They want Trump to listen to them. They're concerned he won't. LOL.