Reps strip provision from intelligence bill requiring campaigns to report foreign election help

[BelemNole]

I mean, why would you want to report that - right?


The Senate will incorporate the annual intelligence policy legislation into the National Defense Authorization Act -- but only after stripping language from the intelligence bill that would have required presidential campaigns to report offers of foreign election help.

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday that Senate Republicans forced the removal of the election reporting provision as a condition to include the intelligence bill on the must-pass defense policy legislation.

Earlier this month, the Senate Intelligence Committee approved an amendment on an 8-7 vote from Warner and GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, which added a provision to the Intelligence Authorization Act requiring campaigns to notify federal authorities about offers of foreign election help.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/30/politics/senate-removes-ban-foreign-election-help/index.html

 

[Chishawk1425]

I mean, why would you want to report that - right?


The Senate will incorporate the annual intelligence policy legislation into the National Defense Authorization Act -- but only after stripping language from the intelligence bill that would have required presidential campaigns to report offers of foreign election help.

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday that Senate Republicans forced the removal of the election reporting provision as a condition to include the intelligence bill on the must-pass defense policy legislation.

Earlier this month, the Senate Intelligence Committee approved an amendment on an 8-7 vote from Warner and GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, which added a provision to the Intelligence Authorization Act requiring campaigns to notify federal authorities about offers of foreign election help.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/30/politics/senate-removes-ban-foreign-election-help/index.html

Saw this earlier today and yep. Lol. ****...****...The GOP is against the country at this point.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

So why have the bill?

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

I am curious what legitimate reasons people would have to oppose this reporting requirement. Isn’t it a good think to know when tampering is attempted? I would think very highly of anyone in both parties that came forward and said “xyz” country has contacted us.

After the debacle of the past 4 years I think transparency would benefit all involved...if you have legitimate motives.

 

[Hawk and Awe]

This feels like “gotcha” political BS games.

We need to rewrite how laws get made. These children can’t handle the process anymore. Why can’t they have stand alone legislation about preventing foreign assistance? I had the same issue with the renaming of military bases.

I support both issues (especially the first as a high priority). It sucks that this is how it has to work

 

[sober_teacher]

This is a tacit admission that what Trump did with the Ukraine call was against the law to me.

I'm not sure what they're thinking here though - this still has to be reconciled with the House version and no way the Democrats would be okay for that.

 

[Finance85]

I do believe there are already laws that cover actual foreign contributions. Now we want to require reporting on offers, even if no contribution is accepted?

Regardless of side, think about the repercussions of that. Millions of offers will stream in, with no actual contribution coming, in an effort to sway political opinion, cause reporting nightmares, and probably causing reporting violations.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

I do believe there are already laws that cover actual foreign contributions. Now we want to require reporting on offers, even if no contribution is accepted?

Regardless of side, think about the repercussions of that. Millions of offers will stream in, with no actual contribution coming, in an effort to sway political opinion, cause reporting nightmares, and probably causing reporting violations.

That’s actually a good point.

 

[Titus Andronicus]

My guess is that this is just another quickly written bill that would mean lots of different things to different people; a law that could be interpreted by the SDNY one way and the FBI another.

After the crap that we have gone through the last three years in an attempt (many attempts really) to search for and find a crime to in turn charge specific individuals with, we should know better. Why give unscrupulous prosecutors more menu items; shorten the menu instead.

They should instead spend spend their time eliminating a few of those 19th century laws that no one is ever charged with, but which the FBI uses to intimidate via threats those who they are investigating. The Logan Act comes to mind, but there are others.

There is a huge amount of hubris in this corner of the legal system that needs to be completely reworked. ... not added to.

 

[sober_teacher]

I do believe there are already laws that cover actual foreign contributions. Now we want to require reporting on offers, even if no contribution is accepted?

Regardless of side, think about the repercussions of that. Millions of offers will stream in, with no actual contribution coming, in an effort to sway political opinion, cause reporting nightmares, and probably causing reporting violations.

2 things I'd like to offer as a counterpoint:

1) I think we should know when countries try to interfere in our elections. We have to be able to have confidence in the integrity election. I'm assuming you're exaggerating when you say "millions of offers", and even in the investigations about Russia interfering in our 2016 election, only a few dozen people were involved in terms of direct contact, at most. But how do you know, if campaign advisor x is approached by country Y, but doesn't report it because he didn't have to, that he didn't also accept said contribution? particularly if it's only information, that would be much harder to track in terms of campaign contributions. It shouldn't be that hard a decision for that advisor to go to the candidate, tell them that they were approached by country Y, and then report that to the FBI. I'd even add that I'm not worried about said advisor being approached and perhaps not reporting it, but if that country tried once to insert themselves into the election, they likely tried more than once and we need to know that information.

2) Politically, how does this work? Everyone outside of Trump believes Russia interfered in the 2016 election. We know that Russians met with Trump Jr, Kushner and Manafort to give dirt they had on Hillary. Even if nothing ultimately happened, the fact that that meeting was ultimately held at all is very concerning and should never have happened. I guess I don't understand how both parties, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies are all agreed that Russia interfered in 2016, and there's every reason to believe they'll try again this year, and we shouldn't want to make sure that Russia, or any other country, doesn't try to do so again this year.

 

[Finance85]

2 things I'd like to offer as a counterpoint:

1) I think we should know when countries try to interfere in our elections. We have to be able to have confidence in the integrity election. I'm assuming you're exaggerating when you say "millions of offers", and even in the investigations about Russia interfering in our 2016 election, only a few dozen people were involved in terms of direct contact, at most. But how do you know, if campaign advisor x is approached by country Y, but doesn't report it because he didn't have to, that he didn't also accept said contribution? particularly if it's only information, that would be much harder to track in terms of campaign contributions. It shouldn't be that hard a decision for that advisor to go to the candidate, tell them that they were approached by country Y, and then report that to the FBI. I'd even add that I'm not worried about said advisor being approached and perhaps not reporting it, but if that country tried once to insert themselves into the election, they likely tried more than once and we need to know that information.

2) Politically, how does this work? Everyone outside of Trump believes Russia interfered in the 2016 election. We know that Russians met with Trump Jr, Kushner and Manafort to give dirt they had on Hillary. Even if nothing ultimately happened, the fact that that meeting was ultimately held at all is very concerning and should never have happened. I guess I don't understand how both parties, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies are all agreed that Russia interfered in 2016, and there's every reason to believe they'll try again this year, and we shouldn't want to make sure that Russia, or any other country, doesn't try to do so again this year.

I have to wonder if you are really a teacher. The best teachers I ever had were really good at teaching people to think.

Yes, I'm serious about millions of offers. Have you ever heard of bots? Are you aware of which countries are really adept at using them? Have you actually contemplated my post at all?

 

[sober_teacher]

I have to wonder if you are really a teacher. The best teachers I ever had were really good at teaching people to think.

Yes, I'm serious about millions of offers. Have you ever heard of bots? Are you aware of which countries are really adept at using them? Have you actually contemplated my post at all?

First, there's a very large difference b/t bots and interaction with real people, which is where I draw the line. Bots I equate with spam and no, I wouldn't require every contact with someone you suspect is a bot. I WOULD require any contact from foreign nationals who offer contributions to your campaign to be reported to the FBI.

2nd, no I don't teach currently. Unfortunately it didn't work out for me and I ended up working for Wells Fargo.

 

[BioHawk]

I do believe there are already laws that cover actual foreign contributions. Now we want to require reporting on offers, even if no contribution is accepted?

Regardless of side, think about the repercussions of that. Millions of offers will stream in, with no actual contribution coming, in an effort to sway political opinion, cause reporting nightmares, and probably causing reporting violations.

I think you have raised a good point, but how are "bot offers" received? It would likely be through email or DM's on a social media platform. It shouldn't be too difficult to set up a filter to channel those offers to and then our intelligence people can go through them and do whatever investigating they need to do.

Given what we've been going through, I think it is more important to error on the side of caution. One thing these corrupt crooks are good at is finding holes in the system and exploiting them.

 

[Finance85]

First, there's a very large difference b/t bots and interaction with real people, which is where I draw the line. Bots I equate with spam and no, I wouldn't require every contact with someone you suspect is a bot. I WOULD require any contact from foreign nationals who offer contributions to your campaign to be reported to the FBI.

2nd, no I don't teach currently. Unfortunately it didn't work out for me and I ended up working for Wells Fargo.

How are you going to know if that e-mail you just got is from a bot, or not?

Imagine this - you receive an email from a person who claims to be Russian, or Chinese. They say they are interested in contributing to your campaign, and want to know how they can send a contribution remotely.

If you think the US government has the capability to stop that, then why haven't they already stopped all the scams?

How are politicians, or their staffs, going to know it's a bot? Do you recall how Hillary's server was initially hacked?

 

[sober_teacher]

How are you going to know if that e-mail you just got is from a bot, or not?

Imagine this - you receive an email from a person who claims to be Russian, or Chinese. They say they are interested in contributing to your campaign, and want to know how they can send a contribution remotely.

If you think the US government has the capability to stop that, then why haven't they already stopped all the scams?

How are politicians, or their staffs, going to know it's a bot? Do you recall how Hillary's server was initially hacked?

Well, for starters, if I receive an email from someone I don't know, I send that to spam.

It's not about stopping them all...unfortunately. It's about doing the best they can given everything that's out there. Any cop can tell you they're never going to end all crime, but that's no reason to not fight it.

As for politicians/staffers, guess what, it's 2020. Each and everyone one of them, especially those are the inner circles should have had, and also on a regular, recurring basis, receive training on how to maintain their files security, things to look for regarding possible bots, and if there's any question whatsoever, send that email straight to spam and/or report it to IT.

I realize they exist with varying levels of sophistication, but it shouldn't be that hard to train people to not open emails unless you know who it's from. Most email providers can allow you to hover over the email title and it provides the email address it came from also.

Again, in terms of bots, that I'm okay with not reporting them necessarily, though I think it's fair to ask them to flag them, report them to IT, especially if they're particularly sophisticated.

 

[Finance85]

Well, for starters, if I receive an email from someone I don't know, I send that to spam.

It's not about stopping them all...unfortunately. It's about doing the best they can given everything that's out there. Any cop can tell you they're never going to end all crime, but that's no reason to not fight it.

As for politicians/staffers, guess what, it's 2020. Each and everyone one of them, especially those are the inner circles should have had, and also on a regular, recurring basis, receive training on how to maintain their files security, things to look for regarding possible bots, and if there's any question whatsoever, send that email straight to spam and/or report it to IT.

I realize they exist with varying levels of sophistication, but it shouldn't be that hard to train people to not open emails unless you know who it's from. Most email providers can allow you to hover over the email title and it provides the email address it came from also.

Again, in terms of bots, that I'm okay with not reporting them necessarily, though I think it's fair to ask them to flag them, report them to IT, especially if they're particularly sophisticated.

Good for you on the spam. Do you really think the proposed law would allow that? I mean, isn't the point of a law like this to report everything?

 

[Flie]

I mean, why would you want to report that - right?


The Senate will incorporate the annual intelligence policy legislation into the National Defense Authorization Act -- but only after stripping language from the intelligence bill that would have required presidential campaigns to report offers of foreign election help.

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday that Senate Republicans forced the removal of the election reporting provision as a condition to include the intelligence bill on the must-pass defense policy legislation.

Earlier this month, the Senate Intelligence Committee approved an amendment on an 8-7 vote from Warner and GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, which added a provision to the Intelligence Authorization Act requiring campaigns to notify federal authorities about offers of foreign election help.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/30/politics/senate-removes-ban-foreign-election-help/index.html

They key is to just adjust any laws/policies where you got in trouble before so it doesn't happen again. Problem solved.

 

[sober_teacher]

Good for you on the spam. Do you really think the proposed law would allow that? I mean, isn't the point of a law like this to report everything?

My understanding is that the Senate version would not require members of a campaign to report anything, which I disagree with. I don't think it would be hard to specify reporting offers of foreign help as either an in-person contact or something like that. Simply receiving an email, especially if you don't know who it's from, to me doesn't qualify as that to me. Where it would cross the line is if it's something like where Don Jr was having that email conversation with the Russian gal, and then setting up a meeting based on that. That should be reported, every time.

 

[Finance85]

My understanding is that the Senate version would not require members of a campaign to report anything, which I disagree with. I don't think it would be hard to specify reporting offers of foreign help as either an in-person contact or something like that. Simply receiving an email, especially if you don't know who it's from, to me doesn't qualify as that to me. Where it would cross the line is if it's something like where Don Jr was having that email conversation with the Russian gal, and then setting up a meeting based on that. That should be reported, every time.

So in your last example, I get your point, but how does one distinguish? Do you really want to have a law that gets that granular?

 

[sober_teacher]

So in your last example, I get your point, but how does one distinguish? Do you really want to have a law that gets that granular?

It's a relatively specific scenario to me, so yeah. I'd rather that than be too vague that just about anything could qualify, such as the bots you mentioned.