If Election result 2016 declared illegal, what then?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Quack, Aug 23, 2018.

  1. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    940
    Do understand what the word collusion means?

    Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement:
    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/collusion


    When a candidate conspires with criminal parties to gain a political advantage in an election, it’s a crime.

    That term has come to be shorthand for the possibility that the Trump campaign, its advisers or the president himself coordinated with Russia, a hostile foreign power, to help Trump win the election. The argument that such coordination would be lawful is striking, including the fact that it follows 191 charges against 35 individuals and companies brought by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, which have yielded five guilty pleas. Taken together, that work spells out the many crimes Russia committed to attempt to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-actually-many-crimes/?utm_term=.43803fe1a77f


    And it’s not just about collusion, since this investigation necessitates an investigation into the behaviors and histories of all the suspected parties, any other unrelated crimes that these individuals engaged in are fair game as well.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    there is no such crime as "collusion" that is also another bold faced lie.
    it confuses me how supposedly self stated intelligent people parrot this.

    from my very brief topical glaze of some old memorys, the mccathy era had terms for "colluding with a foriegn power" or some such narative which was bandied about to use for dog whistle politics.

    the irony is that there has been no actual proof shown that a foriegn government has been assisting DT to do soething that is deemed illegal as an act of war.

    the talk is all about espionage and foriegn actors and a never ending string of rhetoric.
    all dancing around the fact that the political system in the USA is designedaround an all encompassing concept of mandate for power via election.

    can a foriegn power assist others to propogate media on private sites(facebook etc) that are then claimed to be espionage ?
    no !
    i dont think so.
    it seems like a pretend game of cat n mouse to keep people occupied.

    the moral obligation that many tout as being the prime directive of the POTUS is simply that. old world stateman politeness.
    i thought the public would get their narative strait after the whole releasing tax returns thing was proven to be a purely optional process and not a law.
    and low n behold what is the electorial mandate of preferance ? cow-boy shoot fromthe hip style middle finger to big government ...
    so there it is.
    at what point have people leaned all over their elected officials and marched in the streets to demand a change to electorial laws and basic compulsory laws around releasing tax returns and other such etherial natures of moral infatuation ?

    nothing happening !
    why ?
    because too many people do not wish to have any law that gives the capitalist government more power over their personal financial affairs.

    its like a dog chasing its tail.

    the moral religous theme of moral compulsion to define th enature of culture as a form of legal governance is well established as a christian metaphour of conservatism Vs modern secular christianity.
    that in its self is another dog chasing its tail hidden behind the process of simple business capitalism.

    on one hand the vast majority want big business and busines in general to be able to go about the world hob-nobbing with people and presidents as and when they see fit.
    on the other they want some type of moral contract of legal facist doctrine to counter what ever their chosen religon is against.

    as good an example as any why the church should not be allowed to rule the state, and Visa Versa
    (i cant be bothered editing my typos today)
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,520
    52 USC §30121↱:

    (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.​

    The phrase "thing of value" is in play.

    The conservative talking point about how there is no law prohibiting collusion with, or soliciting or receiving things of value from, foreign nationals, is incorrect. USC Title 52 pertains to voting and elections; CFR Title 11 attends the Federal Election Committee, and similar rules are described in 11 CFR 110.20↱.
     
    Capracus likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    & it was jared cushner who was in russia seeking advice ?
    was he employed by the republican party while he was doing that ?
    value being the content of material evidence that would implicate a US national into loosing public support through a federal / state / local election ?
    though that is not stating the presidential election.
    is the presidential election a federal election ?

    what is the legal penalty ?
    100 hours community service as time-served and a ban on doing it again ?
    maybe a cancellation of his passport ?with a perminent travel ban ?
    a fine of 10% of how ever much he makes from the deal ?
    a ban from having to stand for the national anthem ?
     
  8. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    940
    The term collusion is used to denote conspiring with, as in conspiring with foreign nationals, e.g., Russians, to illegally influence an election.

    Federal election law, administered by the Federal Election Commission, prohibits contributions, donations and other expenditures by “foreign nationals” in any federal, state or local election as well an exchange of any “thing of value.” Most recently, Section 303 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, strengthened the ban on foreign money in U.S. electioneering.
    https://lawandcrime.com/politics/ab...foreign-nationals-to-influence-u-s-elections/

    That's why there's an investigation. Do you think that a Republican attorney general would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the behavior of a Republican President if there wasn’t a suspected crime? There's already evidence that the Russians engaged in the criminal activity, what's left to be proven is the connection to DT.
     
  9. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    google says the presidential election is a federal election

    for arguement sake, say there was a Tv program made about MT having round table breakfast Tv discussions with russian celebritys including politicians.
    for arguement sake, lets say it was a well watched tv series/program

    would it be illegal ?
    then, consequentialy say after the program had been running for a year or so, would that invalidate DT as being the president ?
    and/or would that criminalise DT ?

    The only logical paradigm thus far is that DT being the leader of the Republican party is the one making all the descisions and thus legally culpable for his instructions and his staffs actions while representing the party/company.

    is that a legal reality ?(arguementative?) = dog chasing its tail

    yes
    "what do i think?" ?

    the republican party want to cover both ends of the media angle so they want to look like they are doing something even if its doing nothing or deliberately running in circles(dog chasing its tail).
    change for change sake though a normal facet of human psychology is not a standard model of political practice.
    stoic conservatism rules the right by declaring less is more.

    its all a big game of Celebrity apprentice. using working class tax money to pay each other for prize money & gold plated toilet seats.

    when does the republican/right delcare less government is better and so declare a reduction in salarys for all their elected officials ?

    greed is ?

    playing loaded dice on a slanted table.

    ... and to make a play out of the "who is ligit game"
    is there 2 attourney generals ?
    1 democrat
    1 republican
    ?
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,304
    I think it is incredibly important to keep in mind some salient facts about the investigation:
    It is not a Democrat sponsored investigation. It is a republican sponsored investigation.
    The sheer fact that the special council was appointed by a Republican attorney general to investigate a republican Presidential campaign ( and associated matters) is in itself extremely indicative of the severity and significance of that investigation.
    It is also worth noting that the sheer size of the investigation team, the qualifications/experience of the attorney's, other investigators involved and the time that it has run so far, also indicates, certainly to me, that details so far published in the public domain and convictions secured etc. are potentially trivial compared to the end game that the investigation may be working towards.

    A quick read of the Mueller teams qualification/experience resume is highly suggestive that some thing well beyond what most people may be expecting as an outcome is on the agenda.

    In other words I think it would be unwise to underestimate the gravity of what may yet be disclosed at some future date and given the unprecedented nature of the "world" as it is today, that result will almost certainly be seriously unprecedented as well.
    Impeachment may prove to be relatively trivial compared to what may yet eventuate.

    see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–present)
    for general info...
     
  11. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    148
    Umm......Holy uncharted territory, Batman! Holy constitutional crisis, Batman!
    What can be done is limited only by the imaginations of the powers that be.
     
  12. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    940
    It sound more like a game of Russian roulette. Trump’s already potentially facing felony charges in connection to Michael Cohen’s conviction, and that’s not even a result of the Mueller investigation, who knows what additional charges will stem from that inquiry.

    On Tuesday, Cohen pleaded guilty to making these excessive contributions, and to illegally using a corporation to do so. According to a government document, Cohen faces between 51 and 63 months in prison and up to $1 million in fines under the DOJ’s recommended sentencing guidelines for the campaign finance violations and other assorted charges to which he has pleaded guilty. Court documents indicated that much of this work of keeping the women quiet was done in coordination with people at the parent company of the National Enquirer, whose owner David Pecker is a Trump friend and major supporter.

    But Cohen did more than admit guilt: In open court he indicated that the payments were made “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office” and “for the principal purpose of influencing the election.”

    If prosecutors have evidence such as text messages or recordings corroborating Cohen’s statement implicating Trump, that would be more than enough for Trump to be charged with a crime. It is illegal to conspire with someone to make an excessive illegal contribution, and it is illegal for a candidate or campaign to accept an excessive illegal contribution. The same goes for the illegal corporate contributions. As Cohen’s attorney Lanny Davis asked: “If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, why wouldn’t they be a crime for Donald Trump?”

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ctly-implicates-donald-trump-in-a-felony.html
     
  13. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    148

    Perhaps space is not the final frontier....Perhaps we'll go where no man has gone before? Will we be so bold, so intrepid? It appears we may not have a choice but to go.



    Will the "good ship, Lollipop" into which Trump has turned the U.S. survive the trip? I just don't know, but we're going to find out.

     
  14. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    how does that make him not president ?
     
  15. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    he can then pardon himself if he were convicted can he not ?
     
  16. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    940
    When Presidents begin to amass criminal charges and the evidence is convincing enough, pressure from the public and congress could lead to his resignation or impeachment. That's what happened to Richard Nixon in 1974.
    I would say it's about as likely as he being able to give himself a blowjob. What's more likely is that whoever ends up as his successor might grant him a pardon.
     
  17. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    soo the plain language direct answer to this is "when the Republican party become so embarrised that they cant possibly continue to stay in power"

    though, you see. this is the thing.
    i doubt they can be presured to give up power.
    power is everything to them.
    such is the capitalist way and society.
    if you have no power you have no income you have no medical care you have no food etc etc...
    obviousely al those people are multi millionaires and need not ever work another day in their lifes, while they get paid millions in salarys from the working class taxes and deny those same working class medical care etc...

    we are here to discuss the elephant in the room are we not ?
     
  18. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    940
    Yes, that elephant is a common sighting these days.
     
  19. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    it is starting to seem with all the extremist normalisation that you need to move an elephant to get into the room to begin with.

    im not sure cultural reactionism has ever been a good thing
    much less in political ideology
    counter culture litigious self actualisation in a world owned by everyone else(be that a dictator state or private corporations).

    how do you quantify public service ?
    no such thing
    only public access to purchase.
    the incessant bi-polar diatribe is never ending

    how is that dakota pipeline thing going ?
    no one cares anymore because its not trending.

    the insatiable appetite for virgins. it must be new or its all old and useless. que comercialism as an emotional hat for consumerism.
    whos banning plastic toys for christmas ?
     
  20. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,943
    You miss the point. Its not about the truth, its about perception. Remember nobody thinks their evil. You get that republican party has become fascist. I get that the republican party i fascist. They don't. their are good people who support the republican party, who view it as just a conservative party. Yes, they are wrong but it is irrelevant. Your, from the perception of those on the right, declaring all out war on rightwing thought. That's going to motivate and focus them. We don't want to do that. Your dealing with a group that has a lot of people who armed to the teeth, have zero problems with violence to get their way, and a rather tenuous grasp on reality. Do you really think its a wise to take a course of action to make these people feel threatened? They have all ready stated they will use violence if trump goes down, we need a way to take out the power of the republican party without these people getting violent. I don't know where you live but I live in the south. If these people decide to start killing people because of politics I seriously have to worry about my safety.
     
  21. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,943
    actually yes. if he plays to the point of neglecting his duties. Thats what the high crimes and misdeamors is means.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,165
    Right. Removal from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a Constitutional remedy. Removal for office because he plays golf, and golf is not called out in the Constitution, is not.
     
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,286
    "emoluments clause"
    in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,[1] that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress. Also known as the Emoluments Clause, it was designed to shield the republican character of the United States against so-called "corrupting foreign influences." This shield is reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility

    OK for gvmt employees
    how about candidates?
    so, then we have election law:
    "(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election."

    from cornell
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

    OK so we're back to defining value if it ain't cash or an office building....etc.
    How does one quantify the "value" of information or advice.

    Let us suppose that I would run for federal office and was offered advice by QQ, which I then listened to and used in my campaign.
    Of what value was it?
    Is there a qualitative/quantitative line in the sand
    What would QQ have to do to cross that line?

    ...........................
    Has this law been litigated by the courts?
    partly
    see:
    Bluman v. FEC

    where the court ruled that the contribution had to be money/or monetizable
    otherwise, such a prohibition could run afoul of the 1st amendment.
    so
    QQ may (seemingly)advise freely.

    .....................................
    So, Trump, Clinton, or sculptor can/may get information and/or advice from anyone in the entire world without violating the letter of any laws.

    Just, please QQ if you decide to support my candidacy do NOT send money!
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2018

Share This Page