Agree on #1; I was focusing on what Bump wrote re camp fin laws. As for #2, absolutely. It's the cutout (or cut-out) issue, and the question is re liability of HRC's campaign & its people. A gives X to B – Illegal – yet – A gives X to C who gives it D who gives it to B – Legal?
-
-
"Ah, I see your point." Thank you! (srsly) And if that's how, in effect, the campaign finance law applies (ie, have enough middlemen & you're fine), it's silly. Yet I am old enough to know that that is how laws work sometimes. (for all I know, ppl say that about some I wrote)
-
I agree! Would we feel it was any less illegal/immoral if Trump had paid the Russians? But yet that would've gotten him off??? I want there to be other reasons to differentiate these two situations (Trump/Russia vs the Hillary/Steele), but I guess there aren't any??
-
Just to clarify, from what I know about what Steele did, I don't see any violation of campaign-finance law regarding a "thing of value" being rec'd w/o it being paid for. I just used the Steele story, and added some hypothetical bits, to help flesh out some legal issues.
-
I know but my point is I feel there are moral/ethical differences that don't have anything to do with the law.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.