General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJill Stein refuses to turn over campaign documents to Senate intel committee
Last edited Thu Apr 26, 2018, 11:39 PM - Edit history (1)
Link to tweet
?s=20
Link to tweet
?s=20
From RAWSTORY:
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/green-partys-jill-stein-refuses-turn-campaign-documents-senate-intel-committee/amp/
Attorneys for Former Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein are submitting a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee stating she will not supply it with all of the information they have requested about the 2016 campaign, calling the request “overbroad.”
According to The Intercept, which received a copy of the letter to be delivered on Thursday, Stein is refusing to turn over everything they have asked for as it related to their probe into Russian activities in the 2016 election.
In the letter addressed to committee chair Richard Burr, R-N.C., and ranking member Mark Warner, D-Va., the attorneys say the campaign will agree to turn over some documents, but raised constitutional objections over the request.
Stein has been under scrutiny over her visit to Russia where she was photographed sitting at dinner prior to the election with Russian President Vladimir Putin and former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn who is currently being investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller.
According to the Intercept report, Stein’s attorneys say they are willing to turn over “all communications between the campaign and ‘Russian media organizations, their employees, or associates’ between February 6, 2015, and the present.”
Where they are drawing the line is a request for communications and emails from the “campaign’s policy discussions regarding Russia” during the same time frame.
According to Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, of the Washington-based Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, who authored the letter, the campaign will refuse to produce those materials “on the basis of constitutional privilege arising from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
MORE at LINK...
EDIT TO ADD RAWSTORY LINK:
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/green-partys-jill-stein-refuses-turn-campaign-documents-senate-intel-committee/amp/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Gothmog
(162,024 posts)
R B Garr
(17,611 posts)Tax returns from every single candidate going forward. No exceptions. No excuses.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Mueller will be calling you Jill.
Keep your phone charged!
calimary
(85,966 posts)
Doodley
(10,780 posts)Wwcd
(6,288 posts)My sympathies 
Cha
(309,910 posts)Hillary that helped get us trump?
Response to Cha (Reply #9)
Wwcd This message was self-deleted by its author.
Doodley
(10,780 posts)colluding with Putin. This is the straw that broke the camel's back.
Cha
(309,910 posts)Doodley
(10,780 posts)maddiemom
(5,117 posts)for the past six or eight years. No one could answer me specifically as to what qualifications she had or why they liked her so much. I, too, liked what she had to say on policy (NOT on her fellow candidates who were Democrats). I just didn't understand how she planned to get it done. Now, when she's done the damage, many of her former admirers are saying, "Whoa, wait..." The picture with Putin did nothing to affect my opinion of her one way or the other. I had already formed my opinion due to her smugness and lack of specifics on attaining her "goals."
Doodley
(10,780 posts)How outspoken has she been against the destruction of environmental protection by Trump?
It as if she is only interested in being in an election. For what purpose, if it isn't to fight for green issues?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Any site that supported Stein was not dominated by liberals. Radicals, extremists, other hostile left-wing dissidents, some right-wing hostiles, and a full range of whackadoodles, yes. But liberals who wander into those dysfunctional mixes typically discover their mistake and move on.
Just look at what the Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson's and Madison's day believed in and how they behaved, because it was absolutely dominated by liberals. Look at what the Democratic Party believes in and how we behave overall, in spite of the broad range of groups in our big tent, and see what liberal is.
That last doesn't mean despising what everyone else wants and trying to overset their choices, which the Jill Steins of this world always want to do.
maddiemom
(5,117 posts)if you'll forgive the bit of it that I was using (why I said "nearly"
. NO ONE on this site ever fawned over Stein?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)you were a "nearly lone voice" who didn't admire Stein, Maddiemom.
We have a huge political vocabulary problem in this nation, one used by scoundrels on both sides to manipulate and delude. Calling wingnuts liberals is a major right wing tactic that's worked horribly well against us.
So, again, those collections of hostile wingers and misfits do not reflect liberalism. No matter what some may imagine themselves, there are huge differences between even strong liberals and radical-to-extremist leftists. Their opposition to, and even hostility toward, the liberal Democratic Party demonstrates this again and again, and the radical left often unites, tacitly or overtly, with the right in common purpose against us. 2016 was nothing new.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)No patience for fucking traitors.
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)F U Jill. What's with all the traitors? We've been rock solid until this election. I think they knew it was a tipping point. We were in store for the Peoples Renaissance, and the Supreme Court was about to de-militarize this country from the police dept up. They just stole it from us.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)I just can't imagine
Cha
(309,910 posts)as slimey as we already know? With your blatant lies that helped the Russians get trump rigged in?
Can she be made to turn them over? thanks Wwcd
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)I'm sure she would present the argument but if she ends up battling Mueller, she won't win.
Mueller has intel on all of them.
Every candidate with any hint of assisting the coup, hiding money, RU gifts or assistance in 2015/16 or beyond that.
"He knows all about you Jill Stein!" 
Cha
Cha
(309,910 posts) Wwcd!
elocs
(24,106 posts)Sad that people on the Left didn't grasp the concept that the winner was either going to be Trump or Clinton. Yes, elections do have consequences. If Stein were to run again in 2020 she would still get votes from the politically naive.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)"she would still get votes from the politically naive."
BigmanPigman
(52,899 posts)I have no sympathy for either since they have caused all of us to live through administrations who are corrupt and dangerous over and over and over. We have to suffer for their ignorance??? NO WAY is that fair.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Their purist bullshit has done to women's choice, LGBTQ people, poor people that need government help. People that vote third party in critical elections are nothing but hoity-toity bullshitters who don't have a fucking clue about what reality is.
BigmanPigman
(52,899 posts)literally begging Ralph Nader not to run as a third party candidate...I forget whether or not it was 2000 or 2004 but Nader ran and cost us the votes...we were stuck with Bush!
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)They are going to vote for charlatans every time in close elections and cost democrats and the country. We are better off appealing to true Independents than we are spending time trying to convince the Nader, Stein, Bernie or bust people to get over themselves and not fuck up the country. At least Independents will listen to rational arguments.
Crutchez_CuiBono
(7,725 posts)WORK WITHIN THE SYSTEM. Not too hard. Baby steps.
Me.
(35,454 posts)I believe she could've cared less, look how she made off like a bandit with that recount scam.
BigmanPigman
(52,899 posts)Stein was/is definitely 100% aware of what her role was in this mess. I am one of the people who actually contributed $15 for the recount. I would pay a king's ransom to get the fucking moron out of this country permanently. Between the election and the inauguration I did everything I could to prevent him from being sworn in. I even called the Dem reps in the Senate and House begging them not to verify the Electoral College votes.
Now I want to know where the extra recount money went since all 3 states didn't do a complete recount before the deadline.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 26, 2018, 11:49 PM - Edit history (1)
by the grifters, scammers, swamp dwellers, thieves and that abscess in the WH known as Comrade Trump. Hands in taxpayer pockets all the way around, fundraising for homes, lifestyle and sheer retirement gain. Ryan will be walking off with 14 mil in unused campaign funds and he's not the only one.
BigmanPigman
(52,899 posts)I would have an ulcer in 5 min. I guess that is why I was a poor teacher and an even poorer artist before that.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)The money in his fund has to be distributed to other candidates or non-profits.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Will go to helping other candidates don't see any publicized plans for the other money.
“The ban on personal use does not apply to Leadership PACs once the individual leaves Congress,” Ryan said. The law “only applies to principle campaign committees, not Leadership PACs. The FEC for years has been saying the personal use ban should be expanded to all committees. House and Senate rules arguably ban any use of personal funds, but once they leave…they are not subject to House or Senate rules.”
According to a written legislative recommendation by the FEC to Congress, “no corresponding provision covers individuals who convert contributions received by party committees, separate segregated funds, leadership PACs and other political committees, to their own personal use.”
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/03/the-retirement-announcement-la/
former9thward
(33,424 posts)I was referring to his personal campaign fund.
lkinwi
(1,530 posts)“greater good”. We ”greater gooded” right into this tRump mess.
LenaBaby61
(6,991 posts)"greater good."
I came across 17 Stein supporters who hated Hillary with a passion while phone banking leading up to last Falls election. Not sure how they ended up on the list I had 
But anyway ....
Almost all of them were very nasty and hung up in my face. Only 3 of them were courteous and took time to actually explain WHY they weren't voting for Hillary last year. The ones who were complaining about health care, I can't imagine what they're thinking now, especially since thuglicans are STILL assaulting Obamacare in every way they CAN.
Way too many “never Clinton”, “never Trump” Bernie lovers (friends) who just couldn’t or wouldn’t follow his lead when he declared a vote for anyone other than HRC was a vote for trump. I begged and pleaded....Funny, but not, they’re very quiet these days.
BobTheSubgenius
(11,977 posts)What a slimy gastropod of a human being. I really despise her.
mcar
(44,480 posts)
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)By doing that she has put her ass squarely in Mueller's gunsight.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)It blinds! 
SunSeeker
(55,525 posts)What a bullshit, nonsensical objection. She is so guilty of being Putin's asset.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Stall, distract, accuse, stall, ....
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)SunSeeker
(55,525 posts)JI7
(91,790 posts)by the Russian Hack ?
SunSeeker
(55,525 posts)Mueller's folks said that via their filed indictment: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/
Also, a January 2017 assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) stated that Russian leadership favored presidential candidate Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian president Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" in order to increase political instability in the United States and to damage Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign by bolstering the candidacies of Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections
Kirk Lover
(3,608 posts)real investigations or Mueller already has her fucking number. So I ain't worried.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)
R B Garr
(17,611 posts)
Takket
(22,940 posts)
Docreed2003
(18,134 posts)This is some bullshit and needs full disclosure and exposure.
Stinky The Clown
(68,572 posts)lindysalsagal
(22,681 posts)
I don't see a link.. I want to bookmark this..
Mahalo!
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)For those of you saw the word "Stein" and immediately favored us with your views on the 2016 general election, let me quote the specific paragraph from the OP that I'm addressing, concerning Stein's attorneys' response to the document demand:
Note that the campaign is willing to produce communications with the Russians. The dispute is over internal discussions concerning public affairs. Therefore, the issue here is not whether Stein's campaign gave Wisconsin to Trump or whether Stein voters were delusional or any of that interesting stuff. The much narrower issue is this: Should the government have unlimited power to review the internal communications of organizations that criticize government policy?
One answer in this thread and elsewhere seems to be "Innocent people would have nothing to hide." Here are the logical implications of that old chestnut:
* The government should be able to wiretap anyone without getting a warrant. Ditto for searches and seizures, including of computers.
* Speaking of computers, the government should have the power to install covert keystroke loggers on every computer sold.
* There should be no more privilege against compulsory self-incrimination and no more privilege for attorney-client communications.
* Trump and his minions should be free to do to the Democratic Party whatever the Senate committee wants to do to the Green Party.
If you're happy with all that, congratulations, you're intellectually consistent. Horrifically authoritarian and undemocratic, but at least consistent.
You say Stein's decisions and actions in 2016 were wrong, that the practical effect of the Green Party campaign was to aid Trump, and that Trump has been a disaster for the nation and the world? Fine, I agree with all of that.
If you say that all of that means that the Greens forfeit their constitutional rights, then I disagree 100%.
Finally, an attempted pre-empt: I voted for Clinton in November and I am not arguing that anyone should have voted for Stein. I will ignore any responses that appear not to comprehend this fairly basic distinction.
R B Garr
(17,611 posts)on communications with the Russians? When will you ever address the Russia interference that is being investigated instead of changing the focus. Hillary was victimized by this Russian interference. Fact.
Edit-RNC/Trump made policy changes to their platform that favored Russia on Ukraine
R B Garr
(17,611 posts)“policy discussions” to a vague but indirect “public affairs”. Why change the focus? You are trying to make it about Constututional rights when it is about foreign interference/collusion.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write:
The OP to which I responded referred to the First Amendment. Hence, my reference to the Constitution is not a change in the focus.
Turning to the substance, here's the issue raised by your comment: When United States citizens are accused of foreign interference/collusion, do they still have their Constitutional rights? I say they do.
In fact, even someone convicted in a court of law for illegal collusion would still have Constitutional rights. Such a defendant could not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, no matter how many ignoramuses were to howl for torture or the like.
In short, we have a Constitution that protects all of us. It even protects dissidents whom the government does not like. That's one difference between the United States and Russia.
R B Garr
(17,611 posts)the scope. The scope was the policy dialogues, and that goes to intent behind dealings with Russia. "Public affairs" is an intentionally watered down sidetrack.
You are definitely trying to change the scope to make it appear that poor Jill is being picked on and the big, bad government men are infringing on her Constitutional rights, but that is not what is happening.
Jill would like you to do her work for her and make this about the Constitution, but it is about how a foreign power influenced her policy platform. We know that Russia did influence the RNC and they changed their platform to policy more favorable to Russia regarding Ukraine.
Face it, this all goes to the river of denial that runs through the so-called populists because they cannot abide that Russian interference cost Hillary the election. It must always be made into something else which props up certain also-rans. 
uponit7771
(92,756 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)There is no "subpoena fairy" who can simply wave her magic wand and make the Constitution go away. The Bill of Rights would be a pretty flimsy bulwark of freedom otherwise. The believers in the Tinkerbell theory of civil liberties will find that, in the United States of America, a person served with a subpoena can ask a court to quash the subpoena.
A court might limit the scope of the subpoena to exclude demands by the government that invade protected rights. In the present case, it's important that the Green Party has voluntarily turned over the materials that would be relevant to the Senate's inquiry. We can hope that the committee will be satisfied with that. If the committee decides to go to the mat and subpoena the disputed communications, I hope the court will quash the subpoena entirely.
My title says "still" for a reason. People, there is a danger here, and it's a danger to all of us, not just Jill Stein. Authoritarians don't typically propose an abrupt transition from the rule of law to a dictatorship. Instead, it starts slowly. Two favored devices are "We are facing a grave crisis that necessitates a temporary expansion of governmental power" and "No one will be affected except a tiny [and preferably despised] minority; the good and decent people who are innocent of any wrongdoing have nothing to fear."
Our own history has several such episodes (see, e.g., McCarthy era). In the past, we've recovered from them. The mere advocacy of Communism is no longer grounds for imprisonment. But let's not get complacent. Today, instead of the Communists, the target might be the Muslims or the Greens. Don't get swept up in the hysteria.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)