2020 Presidential Race

Joined
Sep 18, 2013
Messages
15,715
Likes
17,365
Free speech. Remember you are the guys pushing for it. Now if he paid a foreign government to investigate and opponent ... well, that would be different.
Are you saying that the President shouldn't concern himself with obeying laws that he doesn't agree with? That is 1977 Frost/Nixon interview level stuff.
 

AM64

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
7,659
Likes
5,663
I guess technically that could be true.
Remember demonstrators have the right to speak, shove banners in your face, burn stuff, and somehow you don't have the right not to hear if you are within range. I can't see how that would be any different from a guy sitting next to you in a bar, on an airplane, ... I keep saying the concept of "free speech" as pushed by libs through the SC is going to come back and bite them in the butt.
 

AM64

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
7,659
Likes
5,663
Are you saying that the President shouldn't concern himself with obeying laws that he doesn't agree with? That is 1977 Frost/Nixon interview level stuff.
How can hearing free speech be illegal? Are you proposing the FBI > SC? Remember "free speech" is guaranteed by the constitution and was greatly expanded in definition by libs.
 

Stew Cook

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2018
Messages
2,711
Likes
869
Remember demonstrators have the right to speak, shove banners in your face, burn stuff, and somehow you don't have the right not to hear if you are within range. I can't see how that would be any different from a guy sitting next to you in a bar, on an airplane, ... I keep saying the concept of "free speech" as pushed by libs through the SC is going to come back and bite them in the butt.
I don't see things working the same way with foreign governments scooping dirt for a President's political campaign. It's one thing to say you'd do it, but it becomes another thing if it's shown that you are doing it, or have done it.

I think that is essentialy what Trump's allies in the Senate will say about it.
 

AM64

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
7,659
Likes
5,663
I don't see things working the same way with foreign governments scooping dirt for a President's political campaign. It's one thing to say you'd do it, but it becomes another thing if it's shown that you are doing it, or have done it.

I think that is essentialy what Trump's allies in the Senate will say about it.
Well, then you have the little problem of the Steele dossier.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2013
Messages
15,715
Likes
17,365
How can hearing free speech be illegal? Are you proposing the FBI > SC? Remember "free speech" is guaranteed by the constitution and was greatly expanded in definition by libs.
Not all types of speech are covered by the 1st Amendment. Federal election law, administered by the Federal Election Commission, prohibits contributions, donations and other expenditures by "foreign nationals" as well as an exchange of any "thing of value". If contacted by a foreign government offering valuable opposition information during an election campaign, there should be no doubt as to what a candidate should do.
 

AM64

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
7,659
Likes
5,663
The dossier wasn't compiled by a foreign government, nor was it used during the campaign. Unless you count Hillary calling Trump Putin's puppet.
Steele had or does work for the UK ... he has ties to a foreign government. But to get to the other part, why exactly is it assumed that people giving Trump information are "agents" and those providing info for his opposition are "free agents" if that's the distinction you want to make?
 

AM64

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
7,659
Likes
5,663
Not all types of speech are covered by the 1st Amendment. Federal election law, administered by the Federal Election Commission, prohibits contributions, donations and other expenditures by "foreign nationals" as well as an exchange of any "thing of value". If contacted by a foreign government offering valuable opposition information during an election campaign, there should be no doubt as to what a candidate should do.
Yeah, it does, but those contributions are easily laundered. Then there are the "charities". Finally there are demonstrations ... the "free association" of protesters influencing voters directly by drowning out the legally protected free speech of candidates. How about if those are supported by foreign nationals? Is that not like withdrawing funds from a campaign, and how does that differ from offering something of "monetary value" to the opposition.
 

Stew Cook

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2018
Messages
2,711
Likes
869
Steele had or does work for the UK ... he has ties to a foreign government. But to get to the other part, why exactly is it assumed that people giving Trump information are "agents" and those providing info for his opposition are "free agents" if that's the distinction you want to make?
Well yeah, there are loopholes. Ways to launder information. In that way it's effectively "free speech". But as a Head of State to say you would use information from another Government as part of your reelection campaign is, at best, unpatriotic.
 

AM64

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
7,659
Likes
5,663
Well yeah, there are loopholes. Ways to launder information. In that way it's effectively "free speech". But as a Head of State to say you would use information from another Government as part of your reelection campaign is, at best, unpatriotic.
Sorry, I don't see it that way. Our government intelligence agencies use information from foreign governments and nationals all the time. Our police use informants. The press freely use information from foreign sources to taint a candidate they don't like ... how is that not providing aid (something of value) to the opposition. This article is, in fact, an effort by ABC to discredit Trump to the favor of the Dims. Intelligence is always the smart part of defeating an enemy; you'd have to be a fool not to accept information. That's something that will make it to the SC ... count on it.
 

Stew Cook

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2018
Messages
2,711
Likes
869
Sorry, I don't see it that way. Our government intelligence agencies use information from foreign governments and nationals all the time. Our police use informants. The press freely use information from foreign sources to taint a candidate they don't like ... how is that not providing aid (something of value) to the opposition. This article is, in fact, an effort by ABC to discredit Trump to the favor of the Dims. Intelligence is always the smart part of defeating an enemy; you'd have to be a fool not to accept information. That's something that will make it to the SC ... count on it.
The article is a voluntary interview. It is definitely getting attention due to its content. As far as the the other stuff, I won't argue about whether or not it may come to the SCOTUS in some form, it may. We'll see I suppose.

I will say that Trump during his last campaign relied heavily on the social media disinformation to boost himself. "You wouldn't believe what they're saying".. He knew exactly what he was doing. Coordinating messaging with wikileaks etc.

When you make your case, it sounds like you are saying "use your power and use foreign propaganda to keep it" because that is exactly what it would be.

I think Trump will do himself in quicker than anyone else will be able to. But that's just my opinion.
 

AM64

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
7,659
Likes
5,663
The article is a voluntary interview. It is definitely getting attention due to its content. As far as the the other stuff, I won't argue about whether or not it may come to the SCOTUS in some form, it may. We'll see I suppose.

I will say that Trump during his last campaign relied heavily on the social media disinformation to boost himself. "You wouldn't believe what they're saying".. He knew exactly what he was doing. Coordinating messaging with wikileaks etc.

When you make your case, it sounds like you are saying "use your power and use foreign propaganda to keep it" because that is exactly what it would be.

I think Trump will do himself in quicker than anyone else will be able to. But that's just my opinion.
I don't think he will, and I haven't heard Trump telling any foreign government representatives that he will have more flexibility after the election ... like be nice and don't screw up my path to reelection, and it will be to your benefit later. That sounds a lot like "play along with me" which would certainly be accepting something of value during an election.

Where's the proof he did anything to coordinate Wikileaks? Remember it was Hiliary's own fault that Wikileaks had most of that damaging information; I'd put the blame where it belongs.
 

volfanhill

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2011
Messages
12,310
Likes
10,955
Sorry, I don't see it that way. Our government intelligence agencies use information from foreign governments and nationals all the time. Our police use informants. The press freely use information from foreign sources to taint a candidate they don't like ... how is that not providing aid (something of value) to the opposition. This article is, in fact, an effort by ABC to discredit Trump to the favor of the Dims. Intelligence is always the smart part of defeating an enemy; you'd have to be a fool not to accept information. That's something that will make it to the SC ... count on it.
You don’t see a problem with a sitting President encouraging foreign countries to give him dirt on his rivals? That’s nuts .
 

Stew Cook

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2018
Messages
2,711
Likes
869
I don't think he will, and I haven't heard Trump telling any foreign government representatives that he will have more flexibility after the election ... like be nice and don't screw up my path to reelection, and it will be to your benefit later. That sounds a lot like "play along with me" which would certainly be accepting something of value during an election.

Where's the proof he did anything to coordinate Wikileaks? Remember it was Hiliary's own fault that Wikileaks had most of that damaging information; I'd put the blame where it belongs.
Well, you can't promise diplomacy in a future that you aren't president.

About wikileaks: from Mueller Report

Ongoing= Roger Stone?

Maybe we'll find out more sometime soon.
 

VN Store



Sponsors
 

Top