Before you get to the First Amendment issue, these fucking Leftards are trying to get people to believe that communicating evidence of wrongdoing (or in this case, being open to receiving evidence of wrongdoing) is itself wrong.Smitty-48 wrote:To protect and uphold the constitution begins with the First Amendment, which secures the liberty to talk to whomever you please, to include Russians of any stripe, and use any dirt on your political opponents gleaned from talking to whomever you please, to include Russians of any stripe, as you please, it's none of the FBI's business.ssu wrote:Using material that is out there is one thing, meeting with Russian officials is another as there obviously was an ongoing Russian operation. Bound to have the FBI looking up on it.Smitty-48 wrote:I reject the notion that the FBI has any jurisdiction over "collusion" as it pertains to digging up dirt on your opponents in an election, if an American politician is want to use dirt on their opponents, even if gleaned from some foreign source, to include intelligence agencies, it's none of the FBI's business, it's not a crime to dig up dirt on your poltical opponents to win an election, it's constitutionally protected speech, the electorate will decide whether or not it is appropriate, not the FBI.
From the FBI's website:
Too bad they (the FBI) have on their agenda "protecting the US against foreign intelligence operations". But they do have it.Our Mission
To protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Our Priorities
Protect the United States from terrorist attack
Even if the dirt on your poltical opponents was obtained by some sort of intelligence operation; you have no duty nor legal obligation to your poltical opponents to protect their dirty laundry, regardless of where you find it. If the FSB stole it from them and then gives it to you, that's no crime commited by you, you can get your dirt from anywhere, it's constitutionally protected speech, the Democratic National Commitee has no special protections from having their dirty laundry aired in public, quite the opposite in fact.
If the FBI wants to charge some FSB agent with espionage, go right ahead, but when the FBI tries to investigate an American for exercising their First Amendment right, then the FBI are the criminals at that point.
Imagine a rule that prohibits the communication of incriminating evidence. It's absolute nonsense. If the evidence also happens to be national security info, or protected by some other rule, then it's still legal to communicate it! (You just have to do it in a way that protects the confidential portion to the extent possible. The US government has people whose job it is to receive classified information from whistleblowers, for example.)
There's no possible way to argue that it's good to conceal wrongs.
Even in the case of blackmail, the reason it's wrong is not the act of airing of the truth (which is always and everywhere correct and rightful, by definition). It's demanding something in exchange for secrecy that makes it wrong.
