John Bolton now linked to Cambridge Analytica

[cytg111]

So maddow just summed up the latest in the latest drama that is the trump administration by completing a little bit more of the big picture.

So we are all aware that Cambridge analytica used unauthorized data from Facebook to target potential trump voters and that it is owned by mercer and once ran by bannon. What we found out today via their former data guy Christopher Wylie is that they basically funneled money to campaigns by way of investments into their company by donors. So if someone wanted to help a campaign (and this wasn't just in the US) the donor would "invest" in CA and CA would do the rest (and it appears they did a lot). This means that there wasn't any of that normally required reporting of who the donors were and it allowed foreigners to donating unlimited sums of money to pretty much any campaign. Of course that's illegal.

But that's not all. Apparently the money was then funneled into, wait for it, John Bolton's super pac, you know, the newly nominated secretary of state.

Its starting to get pretty clear why Republicans have been eerily silent on this trump Russia matter and going so far as to sabotage it. Because it's bigger than just trump.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/26/cam...f-violating-election-law-by-common-cause.html

I don't have a link to her story so hopefully I summed it up good enough.

Mercer is turning out to be quite the villain.

I guess one question could be : Too big to fail?

 

[pcgeek11]

Yea you would be allergic to facts.

pcgeek : Now I am a spy. Now I am not... Yea Aaaaaalrighty then. Retard.

edit : Oh, is this the passport of Alex Jones you were looking for?
https://twitter.com/AlexJones_Ex/status/979107598552240128

I have no idea what you are babbling about...

 

[brycejones]

I have no idea

You never do.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Yea you would be allergic to facts.

pcgeek : Now I am a spy. Now I am not... Yea Aaaaaalrighty then. Retard.

edit : Oh, is this the passport of Alex Jones you were looking for?
https://twitter.com/AlexJones_Ex/status/979107598552240128

They could have at least not used the photo from his Wikipedia page to make that.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Maddow... Is this like her "Trump Tax Copy Reveal".

LOL

He totally released them later, as promised, amirite?

Full transparency, draining the swamp, birther-in-chief doing all those things he said he would.

 

[cytg111]

I have no idea what you are babbling about...

I am saying that you are as intellectual dishonest as you are vile.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

He totally released them later, as promised, amirite?

Full transparency, draining the swamp, birther-in-chief doing all those things he said he would.

Plus his business interests are in a blind trust, a blind trust, a blind trust because he doesn’t need the money.
That’s nearly identical to how Trump said he would do it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Plus his business interests are in a blind trust, a blind trust, a blind trust because he doesn’t need the money.
That’s nearly identical to how Trump said he would do it.

Yea, just like he said. Honest don.

 

[vi edit]

At some point I will have to dive into researching how much power and influence the Kochs, Mercers, Bezos'es and Soros'es actually wield in American politics. But I fear that's not a journey one can take without putting on a tinfoil hat first...

This is the real "deep state". Not the established career DC agencies, but the monumental wealth and control than a handful of ridiculously rich families have.

 

[zinfamous]

The issue I have with all of this is that it's so convoluted, and there is a ton of speculation involved. I'd really like so see the investigation concluded and all of the actual evidence laid out.

You mean when it's finished, right? Not just, conclude it NOW! for reasons?

 

[SMOGZINN]

So if someone wanted to help a campaign (and this wasn't just in the US) the donor would "invest" in CA and CA would do the rest (and it appears they did a lot). This means that there wasn't any of that normally required reporting of who the donors were and it allowed foreigners to donating unlimited sums of money to pretty much any campaign. Of course that's illegal.

Is it illegal though? This sounds like a loophole in the campaign financing laws. It is legal to invest in a company, and per Citizen's United it is legal for that company to contribute an unlimited amount of money to a campaign by doing it's own advertising and other politically motivated 'speech'.

 

[Jhhnn]

Is it illegal though? This sounds like a loophole in the campaign financing laws. It is legal to invest in a company, and per Citizen's United it is legal for that company to contribute an unlimited amount of money to a campaign by doing it's own advertising and other politically motivated 'speech'.

That's American companies. Cambridge Analytica isn't an American company.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is the real "deep state". Not the established career DC agencies, but the monumental wealth and control than a handful of ridiculously rich families have.

Over the GOP. That's what their tax plan is all about, isn't it- pandering to greed at the top?

 

[zinfamous]

That's American companies. Cambridge Analytica isn't an American company.

So, is it illegal for foreign companies to donate to Super PACS? ...I kinda think that it isn't, which is quite insane, considering the fundamental purpose of Super PACS.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Is it illegal though? This sounds like a loophole in the campaign financing laws. It is legal to invest in a company, and per Citizen's United it is legal for that company to contribute an unlimited amount of money to a campaign by doing it's own advertising and other politically motivated 'speech'.

I think a strong argument can be made that giving money to AT&T as an investment is different than giving money to a company whose sole purpose is to influence Politics
This doesn’t mean I think Citizens United was a good decision

Also Benghazi and her emails and stuff.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So, is it illegal for foreign companies to donate to Super PACS? ...I kinda think that it isn't, which is quite insane, considering the fundamental purpose of Super PACS.

Pretty sure it’s illegal but I’m not sure about let’s say a company that is headquartered in France but has offices in the US.
I’m sure some super talented AT guy knows.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Pretty sure it’s illegal but I’m not sure about let’s say a company that is headquartered in France but has offices in the US.
I’m sure some super talented AT guy knows.

American divisions of foreign companies can form their own PACS and collect donations from their employees etc....

 

[Jhhnn]

So, is it illegal for foreign companies to donate to Super PACS? ...I kinda think that it isn't, which is quite insane, considering the fundamental purpose of Super PACS.

Only their American subsidiaries. I don't think Cambridge Analytica is organized that way-

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/foreign.php

Super Pacs can't legally coordinate with campaigns, either, let alone formulate the pitch as apparently happened with the Trump campaign & CA.

 

[SMOGZINN]

That's American companies. Cambridge Analytica isn't an American company.

I don't know why that would be, the Citizens United ruling states that such political expenditures are speech, and fall under the protection of the First Amendment. We have plenty of rulings that state that the First Amendment does not only apply to US Citizens but to everyone everywhere. The first amendment does not just give us the freedom of speech, it prohibits Congress from "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" not just for citizens, but at all.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't know why that would be, the Citizens United ruling states that such political expenditures are speech, and fall under the protection of the First Amendment. We have plenty of rulings that state that the First Amendment does not only apply to US Citizens but to everyone everywhere. The first amendment does not just give us the freedom of speech, it prohibits Congress from "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" not just for citizens, but at all.

I linked a reasonably authoritative source. If you want to establish a counterpoint I suggest you do the same.

 

[hal2kilo]

So, is it illegal for foreign companies to donate to Super PACS? ...I kinda think that it isn't, which is quite insane, considering the fundamental purpose of Super PACS.

If I recall correctly, this was one of the biggest arguments made in the SCOTUS case against Citizens United and was rejected as a possibility by Alito.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I linked a reasonably authoritative source. If you want to establish a counterpoint I suggest you do the same.

Very well.

Citizens United Holding:

Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.

The 1st Amendment of the United States of America:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Notice how, in that wording nowhere does it say 'For American Citizens' or anything similar. It simply says that Congress is prohibited from passing any laws that abridge 'freedom of speech, or of the press'. The First Amendment is phrased as a general limitations on government power, not special protections for a specific class of people.

 

[interchange]

It seems like Trump would have to work pretty hard to find people intricately tied to scandals he is involved in if there was no prior relationship with him or those influential to him. And any ordinary administration would be able to fish out the link to CA and block his appointment pretty quickly. Who knows what the process is at the WH and if anyone even bothers to try and convince Trump he's making a mistake.

 

[Thump553]

It seems like Trump would have to work pretty hard to find people intricately tied to scandals he is involved in if there was no prior relationship with him or those influential to him. And any ordinary administration would be able to fish out the link to CA and block his appointment pretty quickly. Who knows what the process is at the WH and if anyone even bothers to try and convince Trump he's making a mistake.

Trump's due diligence seems to be limited to how they look on television, and in particular, on Fox "News."

 

[dainthomas]

It seems like Trump would have to work pretty hard to find people intricately tied to scandals he is involved in if there was no prior relationship with him or those influential to him. And any ordinary administration would be able to fish out the link to CA and block his appointment pretty quickly. Who knows what the process is at the WH and if anyone even bothers to try and convince Trump he's making a mistake.

If they hate their job.