I am going to play devil's advocate, maybe

[question everything]

Why is going to meet with Russians to get "dirt" on Hillary can be considered treason?

And why, on the other hand, getting the dossiers from foreign sources is not?

I really don't know. But would like to.

Thanks. Hope you won't alert..

[DUgosh]

1. One came for our allies

And the other did not

[mac56]

2. One was part of an official investigation

And the other was not.

[question everything]

3. Official investigation?

I thought that the DNC used it to go after Trump?

[stevenleser]

4. To what "It" are you referring? Talk it through, you will get your own answer. nt

[question everything]

6. Finding dirt on Trump in Moscow?

I really am not familiar with the details. I thought that one person started and then the DNC/Hillary campaign picked it?

[stevenleser]

20. Fusion GPS, a private company, hired a former British agent to find information on Trump

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/5/16845704/steele-dossier-russia-trump

The British agent had contacts in Moscow from his time as an agent and used them.

[Me.]

27. Paul Singer...Billionaire Con

First hired Fusion to get the goods on trump to get him out of the Con primary. Once trump got the nom, the HRC people picked up the tab for oppo research. They didn't go to Russians, but to Fusion who had gone to a Brit spy who knew what was what and could find out where the bodies were buried.

[Sophia4]

10. The dossier was privately paid for. It was not part of an official investigation

to begin with. It was handed over to the Justice Dept. or FBI but it is my understanding that it was commissioned by private parties, not by the government. First by a Republican and then by Hillary's campaign. I could be wrong, but I believe that is how it worked.

[Sophia4]

5. Papadopoulos told the Trump campaign early on that the Russians had thousands of

e-mails that belonged to Hillary.

We assume that those included the stolen DNC and maybe Podesta e-mails. That is an assumption. If true, the e-mails were stolen either by Russia or received as stolen goods by Russia. Stealing and receiving stolen goods are crimes. Either is a crime.

Thus, if someone knew or had heard that the Russians had the e-mails and went to meet a Russian to confer about the e-mails or their publication, that could very well be a crime. I don't know for sure, and there are several assumptions here. 1) that the Russians had e-mails; 2) that the e-mails had been stolen; 3) that those who met with the Russians knew that the information about Hillary might have been the e-mails we assume were stolen.

Lots of ifs, but if the theft of the e-mails can be proved and if the fact that the Trumps knew or strongly believed the Russians had the e-mails and wanted to discuss their release to the public, then those who talked about, helped plan that release with the Russians might have committed a crime.

The dossier contained information that was provided to the author(s) of the dossier either for free or for payment. We can assume that because the man who created the dossier was a professional spy. It is unlikely that the dossier involved theft of any other criminal act. A spy could steal something, but he probably has less illegal means to find out information. That's his profession.

That's my guess. Stealing e-mails is against the law. Obtaining information about a person is not usually against the law unless it is done by some means that violates a law. I doubt seriously that the information in the dossier was obtained by criminal means although that is a remote possibility.

This is just my guess. I have no inside information.

Stealing privately owned e-mails is as much a crime as it is to enter into someone's business and steal documents from the safe.

[question everything]

9. Thank you for the detailed response

Of course, at some point Trump himself called on Russia to release Hillary's emails and he thought it was cute..

[Sophia4]

17. That might be viewed as conspiring with the Russians.

I don't know how it will be viewed, but that seems possible to me. Asking the Russians to publish e-mails when you know they actually have stolen some e-mails might make you seem complicit. Maybe.

Everything is maybe when you are dealing with the law. Rarely are things absolute and clear-cut. Law may involve some science, but it isn't science. It is about human thought and action, not about scientific fact.

Argument, thinking logically, breaking problems down into elements, convincing yourself and others -- that's law. It just isn't absolute. You don't get absolutely correct answers to legal questions in most cases.

[question everything]

18. Very well put. And, not too late to say Welcome to DU!

Will be looking for more of your posts. Quite clear and concise. Thank you!

[Kirk Lover]

7. Because Russia is a hostile foreign government...the end.

[question everything]

11. I am not sure that at that point we designated Russia as a "hostile" government

after all, we combined forces to fight ISIS in Syria. And it did not bother us, or we did not do anything Putting supporting Assad, basically saving his regime.

[Kirk Lover]

14. They've always been a hostile Government, yes we've worked together on a few things but for

the most part the United States and Russian interests are not the same.

[Sophia4]

19. I don't think Russia is a hostile foreign government.

But we imposed sanctions on Russia because of its invasion of Eastern Ukraine.


(CNN)US President Donald Trump approved fresh sanctions on Russia Wednesday after Congress showed overwhelming bipartisan support for the new measures.
Congress passed the bill last week in response to Russia's interference in the 2016 US election, as well as its human rights violations, annexation of Crimea and military operations in eastern Ukraine.
The bill's passage drew ire from Moscow -- which responded by stripping 755 staff members and two properties from US missions in the country -- all but crushing any hope for the reset in US-Russian relations that Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin had called for.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/europe/russia-sanctions-explainer/index.html

Having better relations with Russia would be a good thing, but the issue with the Ukraine and with Russia's interference in our election would need to be straightened out first.

[blue cat]

36. Hostile to our allies

So, yes, they are considered hostile... see NATO.

[kennetha]

8. you need to make more distinctions.

Conspiring with a foreign GOVERNMENT to influence or interfere with an election is a big no no. Probably violates several laws.

The Steel dossier was not compiled with the help of a hostile foreign government, but rather by private citizen, who was conducting, as I understand, ordinary perfectly legal, opposition research.

Besides, he was initially enlisted by Republicans.

Moreover, upon finding what he found out, he was so alarmed by it that he went to the FBI, in the belief that a crime against the US was unfolding. Rather than participating in a crime against the US, as the Trumpistas happily did, apparently, he reported to appropriate authorities what he believed was a crime against the US unfolding.

For its sake, the Clinton campaign never used information in the dossier. Not even sure that the campaign knew about the dossier. The law firmed they hired to do opposition research, apparently hired Steel. Steel's work product was turned over to US intelligence agencies and US law enforcement ... who, i believe, were already hot on Trump's tail.

[Sophia4]

13. Interesting. I did not know that the law firm that paid some of the money for the

dossier had been hired by Hillary's campaign to do opposition research. That kind of clarifies a lot.

[JHB]

28. To be clear, Fusion GPS was originally hired by a conservative site...

...the Washington Free Beacon for oppo research to knock Trump out of the Republican primaries. After Trump won the nomination, they stopped funding the investigations, and Fusion GPS shopped it to other potentially interested parties, eventually being hired by a law firm on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

[Sophia4]

30. Thanks for your clear response.

[question everything]

15. Thank you. Quite enlightening

I was thinking about it after watching "60 Minutes" when Leslie Stahl interviewed the head of RT. And she claimed that what they did was not illegal. And I have to agree. It is us, the ones who get all their info from Social Media that were influenced by the reports.

Never watched RT, but the examples that they gave, I don't think was much different from Fox. Clear bias against Hillary.

[bettyellen]

26. RT also claims to be independent of the Kremlin, LOL. So theres that.

[AJT]

12. The Steel dossier came from a private American company who was initially

hired by, I think, Jeb Bush's campaign and then the Clinton champaign. The company employed an ex british operative to do research on Trump. There was no use of any foreign power and the info found was turned over to the FBI.

[question everything]

16. Thank you. Yes, quite different. (nt)

[nocalflea]

21. Different implications.

"Fusion GPS is a commercial research and strategic intelligence firm based in Washington, D.C. The company conducts open-source investigations and provides research ..."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_GPS

Fusion was hired and outsourced the investigation of Trump to Steele (dossier author).

The Russians told the Trump people they had dirt on Clinton. They said their source was the Russian government. They were looking for a quid pro quo. In other words they conspired with a foreign government who wanted favors should they win. This is comprising in and of itself and can be used to blackmail those involved even after the original favor sought, is granted.

Also, think of this : A foreign government tells them they have stolen emails from a former Secretary of State and presidential candidate . This is a national security issue . The Trumps' did not run to the FBI or anyone in the federal gov't. and sound the alarm.

Those are just two issues involved

[Sophia4]

31. Thanks. Great answer.

[MaryMagdaline]

22. It's not what Junior wanted from Russia

It's what Russia wanted from Junior. They came to trade dirt for US foreign policy. And they have been getting it ... sanctions lifted from the platform; sanctions not enforced by executive branch.

If they signal they are willing to deal away our foreign policy to favor our strategic enemy, to win an election, this is treason.

[question everything]

24. Thanks. And, as stated above, a lot of "if's"

and whether any of this can be proven. Bannon's assertions notwithstanding.

[Sophia4]

32. Right!

[JonLP24]

23. Oh Jesus christ

That is one piece the conspiracy while the dossier was investigated by someone who used to be MI6 part of the 5 eyes who share information but he gave it to the FBI while counterintelligence is trying to catch espionage related activities. If you follow the history of KGB, FSB, and espionage in general you realize this is very bad. We already have indictments and guilty pleas.

[pnwmom]

25. It is the difference between getting fed dirt by Putin associates versus

spying on Putin associates.

[Sophia4]

33. Well said!

[marylandblue]

29. The Steele dossier is normal opposition research

that just so happened to be performed by a British national. That's legal.

Russia stole emails and also paid for advertising and sockpuppets on social media. If the Trump campaign knew about the emails, it's conspiracy to commit theft or espionage. If they coordinated any of the advertising, it's an illegal campaign contribution. If any of this was done in return for monetary favors, it's bribery. If any of it involved transfers of money from illegal activities, it's money laundering.

[Sophia4]

34. Good answer. Thanks.

[OhioBlue]

37. best reply!!

I have been frustrated with the narrative in the public domain that it doens't include illegal campaign contributions. Even if "collusion" cannot be proven, it is quite obvious that the tRump campaign sought and received campaign assistance from Russia.

[frazzled]

35. One involves potential quid pro quo

A foreign government giving (stolen) information directly to a candidate and campaign advisors, especially ones who have massive, clandestine financial and business ties to that government, suggests the possibility of major favors expected to be given in return should that candidate become an occupant of the White House.

Hiring an opposition firm to investigate an opponent’s weak spot carries no such expectations, especially when the information was not openly and willingly given by a foreign government but rather culled from investigatory work and intelligence gathering on the part of the firm.

[better]

38. A couple of differences that don't seem to have been adequately explained...

First off, meeting with representatives of Russia, or any other country for that matter, is not illegal. But to properly understand the context here, and why that meeting represents the crime that it does, you need to read the Logan Act, the first (and relevant) paragraph of which is as follows:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

The key issue at play here is that Russia was seeking to defeat the measures of the United States, specifically as it pertains to sanctions imposed by the Magnitsky Act. Both Trumps tried to dismiss it by saying the meeting was about "Russian Adoptions". We'll leave for another time discussion of whether or not the Trump team knew what that "Russian Adoptions" (which were terminated in direct response to these sanctions) is code for sanctions relief. Anyone with any business playing in politics at that level certainly would, but this is the Trump family we're talking about.

But bottom line, to carry on correspondence or intercourse with Russia pertaining to lifting sanctions is a felony.
It's that simple.

But apart from and in addition to the apparent violation of the Logan Act, opposition research is something of value, and per Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 110.20 (g), "No person shall knowingly solicit, accept or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) though (d) of this section."

Paragraph (b), in turn, reads :

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.

Now let's backtrack a little bit to the email from Rob Goldstone offering up this dirt...

Good morning

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

Best

Rob Goldstone

To which Trump Jr. replies:

Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?

Best,

Don

So right there we have evidence, posted publicly on Twitter by Trump Jr. himself, that he was informed that he was being offered something very useful, and that it was being offered by a foreign national, and he eagerly pursued it.

By contrast, the dossier was the product of research paid for by the Clinton campaign, not given to them.

[wishstar]

39. Trump sought ILLEGAL Russian Govt. hacking help while Dossier was LEGAL privately funded research

FBI met with the Trump campaign officials to warn them about possible Russian interference with their campaign and told Trump officials to report any Russian attempts to contact their campaign because it is illegal for Russian government to help with a campaign

Trump campaign failed to report their Russian contacts, despite FBI warnings.

By contrast Christopher Steele DID report to FBI his dossier findings from contacts with his private Russian sources in summer of 2016 because he was concerned about Trump's ties to a foreign adversary that was under US sanctions and could potentially pressure and blackmail Trump to work in the interests of Russia. Steele's research found that the Russian government had been conducting a major long term effort to use Trump to further the interests of Russia while hurting Hillary Clinton who was considered unfavorable to Putin and Russia.


Your question is important clue as to why Republican congressman Nunes has subpoenaed for names of Russian sources that provided Steele's dossier information. By finding out Russian names, Repubs can try to claim that those Russians had ties to the Russian government (even though the sources were going against the Russian government by revealing information to Steele that the Russian government would not want made public) so Republicans can try to claim that Russian government was somehow behind the Steele dossier.

[ProudLib72]

40. You're putting a lot of emphasis on a document that really isn't significant in and of itself

FWIW: I had the same question as you a few days ago, but I thought about it a while.

The Steele dossier doesn't mean squat. It's what Mueller and the FBI do with it that means everything. By that I mean it was a stepping stone to finding contacts. It is not proof by itself. Even if Steele wrote up detailed reports of how the Russians were colluding with the tRump campaign, the only value in that is (maybe) it was enough for a grand jury to indict.

But think of what it means to Mueller and the FBI if Steele named a bunch of tRump's contacts. He established a trail that can be followed back and investigated. That's why the Rs want to discredit the dossier. They believe if they can discredit Steele, they can somehow discredit the investigation.

[delisen]

41. Contracting with a company to provide a report on a

politcal opponents is legal.

There is nothing illegal about contracting with a private research firm to provide information and a written report on an individual or a corporation.

The Washington Free Beacon, for example was backing a candidate for president during the primanry and commissioned a report on Donald Trump, as well as other candidates, from Fusion GPS.