Comment by outsidetheparty | Hacker News Reader

Comment by outsidetheparty | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

outsidetheparty

> based on the research I'd done as an informed voter.

The problem is that plenty of voters thought they were equally "informed" by "research," which turns out to have been fraudulent.

> I've never understood this whole Russian voting paranoia.

"The indictment charges that the foreigners falsely posed as American citizens, stole identities and otherwise engaged in fraud and deceit in an effort to influence the U.S. political process." Not comparable to Radio Liberty et al.

> Look at the millions both the Trump and Clinton campaigns and allied organizations received from overseas donors and politicians

Where are you getting your well-informed research, exactly?

"Foreign nationals, other than lawful permanent residents, are completely banned from donating to candidates or parties, or making independent expenditures in federal, state or local elections." https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/supreme-court...

(One of the many Trump scandals is that they broke that law, by allegedly soliciting overseas donations (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/29/trump-campai...). If there's evidence that the Clinton campaign did the same, I'd be very interested to see a source or citation.)

The US has a long history of actively overthrowing governments, and backing or installing candidates that they like. It’s a little hard to take complaints of “meddling” based on people lying about their identity seriously.

Regarding improper foreign donations, there were plenty of reports of foreign donors to the Clinton foundation while she was SoS.

You're absolutely correct! The Clinton foundation received plenty of foreign donations. These may be cause for potential concern.

It may also be worth recalling that charitable foundations and political campaigns are legally distinct structures that operate under different legal requirements. As a result, a comparison between the two might be slightly less than fully straightforward in certain cases.

"there were plenty of reports of foreign donors to the Clinton foundation while she was SoS"

I see what you did there. Pure innuendo. The Clinton Foundation is not a campaign. The Clinton Foundation is a charity. Only in the minds of the paranoid is the Clinton Foundation some nefarious money laundering influence peddling deep state org. Keep in mind that Hillary is the most investigated politician in the history of the US and has never been found guilty of any crimes.

Given what you say, one wonders why foreign governments who had pledged tens-of-millions of dollars have now pulled their donations. Why would Clinton's failure to become President affect the requirement for charitable distribution?

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/05/politics/clinton-foundati...

"The FBI and federal prosecutors are looking into whether donors to the foundation were improperly promised policy favors or special access to Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state in exchange for donations to the charity's coffers, as well as whether tax-exempt funds were misused".

Nobody said it was a campaign. That changes nothing, really.

Regarding your last point about foreign money being used in the U.S. election, you should familiarize yourself with the concept of "soft money" and political action committees.

And the outside entities can bypass the US organizations entirely. There's no law against someone from another country buying political TV ads in the United States.

PACs still cannot accept foreign money, though obviously it is easy to launder. NY real estate companies are a popular money laundering method for this kind of stuff.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com