Hahahahaha .. if thats true then thats just HAHAHAHA .. selfowned by social media AGAIN.
*I will use this TOR thingie through this VPN thingie and stay super duper secret*
*opens facebook app*.
Hahahahaha
And tried to use what was probably a VPN to hide his location(Jakarta really???) Good Lord lololololol
In other words, you have no FEC rulings that agree with your interpretation of their campaign finance laws. As such, you owe me and everyone here an apology for making up complete horseshit and trying to pass it off as fact. Pathetic.Information has been consistently held as a 'thing of value' throughout the US legal system for decades, perhaps centuries. I can't believe you're even trying to argue this.
Seriously, you owe us all an apology.
Yes I do. Now answer the question please.You know the firm was originally hired by GOP operatives right?
Please cite ANY case where information was ruled by the FEC to be a monetary contribution/service subject to campaign finance laws...either that, or just stop with all your horseshit dishonesty.
What is IC in that twitter post? Anyway I just find this whole story odd
You left outNope, what will likely happen instead is one of two things (for each person) IMO:
1 - User will go quiet until they think that the situation has "blown over".
2 - User will serve up a sixteen course meal of false equivalence.
3 - User will say "Who Me?" , I never supported him.
In other words, you have no FEC rulings that agree with your interpretation of their campaign finance laws. As such, you owe me and everyone here an apology for making up complete horseshit and trying to pass it off as fact. Pathetic.
Nilsen contends that the government failed to prove an essential element of the crimes charged in the indictment because the term "thing of value" embraces only property rights, not an intangible such as the testimony of a witness. The government, on the other hand, argues that the broad language of the phrase "thing of value" encompasses intangible objectives as well as tangible property rights.
If a criminal statute is subject to two reasonable constructions, the harsher may be applied to penalize a defendant "only when Congress has spoken in clear and definite language." McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 359, 107 S.Ct. 2875, 2881, 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987). Thus, Nilsen's conviction can be affirmed only if the term "thing of value" unambiguously covers intangible considerations. As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals noted in United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69, 71 (1979), Congress' frequent use of "thing of value" in various criminal statutes has evolved the phrase into a term of art which the courts generally construe to envelope both tangibles and intangibles.
This broad interpretation is based upon a recognition that monetary worth is not the sole measure of value. See United States v. Schwartz, 785 F.2d 673, 679 (9th Cir.1986). The conduct and expectations of both the defendant and the subject of the extortionate threat also can establish whether an intangible objective is a "thing of value." See United States v. Zouras, 497 F.2d 1115, 1121 (7th Cir.1974). The testimony of a key government witness has previously been held to be a "thing of value" within the meaning of § 876 based upon the contents of a threatening letter from the defendant to the witness and the witness's testimony that she valued the right to testify against the defendant. Id. We therefore hold that the phrase "thing of value" is a clearly defined term that includes intangible objectives, and that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Nilsen mailed a threatening letter with intent to extort a thing of value from Ferullo — her testimony linking him to two of the state bank robbery charges pending against him.
This has NOTHING to do with FEC campaign finance laws...NOTHING. You're deliberately conflating because you have nothing left but dishonesty in your incredibly pathetic attempt to save face.Are you fucking kidding me?
From US v. Nilsen:
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19921506967F2d539_11407/U.S. v. NILSEN
Testimony is by definition information, as that's the whole point. You've now spent a lot of time furiously spewing horseshit while accusing everyone else of exactly what you're doing.
I know you're not mature enough to apologize when you're wrong, I was just poking you about your incredibly thin skin. These posts are really just to show everyone else how childish and full of shit you are.
OK, point two. The Clinton campaign did not pay Fusion. Originally it was GOP donors paying them. When they stopped Dem donors began paying them.Yes I do. Now answer the question please.
This has NOTHING to do with FEC campaign finance laws...NOTHING. You're deliberately conflating because you have nothing left but dishonesty in your incredibly pathetic attempt to save face.
Tell me something, how do you feel about the Clinton campaign paying Fusion GPS for opposition research obtained directly from foreign nationals/agents/spies)?
The June 3, 2016, email sent to Donald Trump Jr. could hardly have been more explicit: One of his father’s former Russian business partners had been contacted by a senior Russian government official and was offering to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton.
The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
If the future president’s elder son was surprised or disturbed by the provenance of the promised material — or the notion that it was part of an ongoing effort by the Russian government to aid his father’s campaign — he gave no indication.
He replied within minutes: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”
Four days later, after a flurry of emails, the intermediary wrote back, proposing a meeting in New York on Thursday with a “Russian government attorney.”
Donald Trump Jr. agreed, adding that he would likely bring along “Paul Manafort (campaign boss)” and “my brother-in-law,” Jared Kushner, now one of the president’s closest White House advisers.
Since you're so outraged, so patriotic, and so intellectually honest...please tell me how you feel about Clinton's campaign paying Fusion GPS for opposition research information directly solicited from foreign nationals.
The NYT got the emails and DJT decided to poop them out preemptively. He knew exactly what kind of person he was meeting and for what purpose, so did Kushner/Manafort. They have all lied extensively about this matter.
describes the person they are meeting as a "Russian government attorney"
Initial contact page of thread:
This has NOTHING to do with FEC campaign finance laws...NOTHING. You're deliberately conflating because you have nothing left but dishonesty in your incredibly pathetic attempt to save face.
Tell me something, how do you feel about the Clinton campaign paying Fusion GPS for opposition research obtained directly from foreign nationals/agents/spies?
People from the Trump campaign and surrogates just spent several days on TV saying this was all bullshit and he didn't know who he was meeting or for what reason. Looking forward to checking out a few shows tonight...
Speaking of WaPo....the far fringes of reporting have been saying for over a week now that that they are sitting on some very damning information but the IC/Mueller have asked them to hold it. I wonder if any of that was related to this stuff that NYT is scooping.