6 ms·

You have this inverted. The bar isn't that legal behavior must be circumscribed by law, it is that illegal behavior is specified by law. Actions which are not p

You have this inverted. The bar isn't that legal behavior must be circumscribed by law, it is that illegal behavior is specified by law. Actions which are not prosecutable under the law are very specifically what you say they are not: legally meaningless. > "no evidence was ever found to substantiate Trump or his associates or campaign ever working with Russians to interfere with the election" Parse this again and again. What does this mean? Who would be "interfering?" In what? Is there a legal obligation to conceal factual information? Is there a legal obligation not to seek it? It's telling that they tried to proxy a value under campaign FINANCE violations, so desperate were they to find a crime.

tylerhou 5y ago
> Actions which are not prosecutable under the law are very specifically what you say they are not: legally meaningless. Are you really trying to suggest that actions done by an individual are illegal only if the government can successfully prosecute that individual for their action? Clearly the legality of an action and the ability to prosecute an action are separate concepts. > It's telling that they tried to proxy a value under campaign FINANCE violations This very obviously falls under campaign finance regulations. Federal regulations prohibit campaigns from accepting "things of value" from foreign nationals, and opposition research on a political opponent is also clearly a thing of value, seeing as campaigns hire people to perform opposition research all the time. Dirt on a political opponent also obviously falls under something that would be revealed by opposition research. > Parse this again and again. What does this mean? Who would be "interfering?" The Russians would be interfering in our elections through ads/marketing that support Trump, and providing things of value to the Trump campaign. If the Trump campaign helps the Russians accomplish those goals (through accepting information or giving the Russians demographic data) that would be illegal. It's really quite simple to understand.
- the_optimist 5y ago
  "Are you really trying to suggest..." No, I am directly stating this: Actions which are not illegal should not be prosecuted. This, and every other single aspect of Russia-mania were grotesque attempts to divine illegality. I know you'll disagree from your insistence, but we can agree to disagree. I believe that asking questions or counterfactuals to your statements leads to merciless dead-ends, just like the Mueller report, and I challenge observers to ask those very questions. In this very specific and unusual case, agents of the US government chose not to alert the campaign of suspected influence, but rather 'monitor' on the side and comb through their documentation for a crime, in full public political and media theatre. Would that it happened to you, you might object.

tylerhou 5y ago

> Actions which are not prosecutable under the law are very specifically what you say they are not: legally meaningless. Are you really trying to suggest that actions done by an individual are illegal only if the government can successfully prosecute that individual for their action? Clearly the legality of an action and the ability to prosecute an action are separate concepts. > It's telling that they tried to proxy a value under campaign FINANCE violations This very obviously falls under campaign finance regulations. Federal regulations prohibit campaigns from accepting "things of value" from foreign nationals, and opposition research on a political opponent is also clearly a thing of value, seeing as campaigns hire people to perform opposition research all the time. Dirt on a political opponent also obviously falls under something that would be revealed by opposition research. > Parse this again and again. What does this mean? Who would be "interfering?" The Russians would be interfering in our elections through ads/marketing that support Trump, and providing things of value to the Trump campaign. If the Trump campaign helps the Russians accomplish those goals (through accepting information or giving the Russians demographic data) that would be illegal. It's really quite simple to understand.

the_optimist 5y ago
"Are you really trying to suggest..." No, I am directly stating this: Actions which are not illegal should not be prosecuted. This, and every other single aspect of Russia-mania were grotesque attempts to divine illegality. I know you'll disagree from your insistence, but we can agree to disagree. I believe that asking questions or counterfactuals to your statements leads to merciless dead-ends, just like the Mueller report, and I challenge observers to ask those very questions. In this very specific and unusual case, agents of the US government chose not to alert the campaign of suspected influence, but rather 'monitor' on the side and comb through their documentation for a crime, in full public political and media theatre. Would that it happened to you, you might object.