POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[Alternat¡ve]

Annoying Orange'S A CHUMP
I'LL JUMP ON HIS RUMP
TILL HE GETS A BIG RED BUMP

[Ad Bot]

[Corderlain]

Christopher Steele was the British employee of Fusion GPS who solicitied the Russians for dirt on Annoying Orange. The Clinton campaign and the DNC paying for a nonUS citizen to investigate and research a candidate is highly illegal.

[Frankie²]

for curiosity's sake can you cite the relevant law

[Foxscotch]

clinton and whoever else paid marc elias (american) to find stuff out. elias paid fusion gps (american) to find stuff out. fusion contracted steele (he is not their employee) to find stuff out cus I guess he's a russia expert or some stuff
anyway it's kind of a stretch to say clinton etc. "hired a foreign agent" to do anything, more than likely they didn't even know all this convoluted ass bullstuff cus why the forget would they. do you know the plastic supplier for the company that makes your computer mouse? hell no

[Kearn]

sounds like the usual clinton money laundering

[Kidalex90]

[Corderlain]

for curiosity's sake can you cite the relevant law

52 u.s.c. § 30121

clinton and whoever else paid marc elias (american) to find stuff out. elias paid fusion gps (american) to find stuff out. fusion contracted steele (he is not their employee) to find stuff out cus I guess he's a russia expert or some stuff
anyway it's kind of a stretch to say clinton etc. "hired a foreign agent" to do anything, more than likely they didn't even know all this convoluted ass bullstuff cus why the forget would they. do you know the plastic supplier for the company that makes your computer mouse? hell no

That's nice, but that's not how the law works.

[Foxscotch]

52 u.s.c. § 30121

you are honestly a fool

[Deus Ex]

you are honestly a fool

Says the handicap who things 1-2 degrees of separation means you're clean
I paid this guy to pay this guy to pay another guy to pay this hitman
Wasnt me

[Red Spy]

it was actually me

[Ipquarx]

52 u.s.c. § 30121

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)

(i)The term “electioneering communication” means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which— (I)refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office; (II)is made within— (III)in the case of a communication which refers to a candidate for an office other than President or Vice President, is targeted to the relevant electorate.

clinton paid an american to do research. who then paid an american to do research. who then paid a company to do research. who then paid steele to do research.
There's nothing in that statue that denies the company the ability to pay a "foreign national" to do research on a presidential candidate, so long as it's not used for electioneering (which looks like it's talking about broadcasting stuff on TV). It forbids foreign nationals doing things, not americans from doing things.

Even if it did forbid that, it's not clinton that paid the foreign entity to do the research. The company is the one that paid the foreign entity. You'd need actual proof that Clinton paid the first american knowing and intending for the money to go towards electioneering through a foreign entity.

[Foxscotch]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121
obviously talkin about finance. commissioned research aint a "contribution or donation"

[Nonnel]

might it *technically* count as a contribution of value, considering they paid for a service? and it does say "directly or indirectly."

[IkeTheGeneric]

That's nice, but that's not how the law works.

You don't know how the law works.

[Ipquarx]

might it *technically* count as a contribution of value, considering they paid for a service? and it does say "directly or indirectly."

the language says "donation of money or other thing of value." It's pretty clear it's talking about monetary things. As in, if you donated a gold bar, sure it's not directly a donation of money but it's an "other thing of value."