Would you hold Hillary Clinton responsible for something one of her campaign workers did?

[tytlyf]

The russian investigation has focused on the Trump campaign from day 1. Many people in his campaign have already been outed. Is Trump responsible? Mueller will find out.
Kushner is now being looked into with UAE ties. I did find it odd they did that hugest arms deal with Saudi Arabia right off the bat.

Someone smells fishy doing business with a country responsible for 9/11 and are sponsors of terror.

 

[fantome profane]

Unequivocally no. In order to rightly convict someone of a crime, there must be sufficient evidence by which to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the person engaged in the criminal act being alleged. Speculating that a person "should have known" that someone else had engaged or was engaging in a criminal act is not even close to meeting that standard.

Legally speaking this is not correct. There are many circumstances were an employer, manager or supervisor can be held legally responsible for actions of an employee.

But I am not limiting this question to just the legal question. I am also asking from a ethical perspective. Is it the responsibility of the candidate to make sure those they hire to run their campaign do not violate election laws?

 

[Shaul]

The russian investigation has focused on the Trump campaign from day 1. Many people in his campaign have already been outed. Is Trump responsible? Mueller will find out.
Kushner is now being looked into with UAE ties. I did find it odd they did that hugest arms deal with Saudi Arabia right off the bat.

Someone smells fishy doing business with a country responsible for 9/11 and are sponsors of terror.

Mr Mueller has yet to find any collusion or criminal act by Trump, despite spending millions. But his investigation has uncovered collusion and crimes by Democrats including Hillary Clinton and Obama.

 

[Falvlun]

Mr Mueller has yet to find any collusion or criminal act by Trump, despite spending millions. But his investigation has uncovered collusion and crimes by Democrats including Hillary Clinton and Obama.

Amazing that only Russians and former Trump staff have been indicted so far.

 

[Shaul]

Amazing that only Russians and former Trump staff have been indicted so far.

It isn’t amazing at all if it is remembered that Mueller is partisan himself and that none of the indictments indicate any wrongdoing by Trump.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It isn’t amazing at all if it is remembered that Mueller is partisan himself and that none of the indictments indicate any wrongdoing by Trump.

I have not seen any sign of that yet. At best I have seen allegations against others with no supporting evidence. Do you have anything from a valid source?

 

[tytlyf]

Mr Mueller has yet to find any collusion or criminal act by Trump, despite spending millions. But his investigation has uncovered collusion and crimes by Democrats including Hillary Clinton and Obama.

Ya but the investigation has been about Trump and his campaign. Not just Trump alone. RW media has been trying to spin it that way for a year. I can go back and look at one of my posts a year ago that said that same thing.

Don't let them distract you. There's plenty of russian smoke in the air, the fire is nearby. So you're saying that there is zero evidence of russian collusion with the Trump campaign?

 

[Falvlun]

It isn’t amazing at all if it is remembered that Mueller is partisan himself and that none of the indictments indicate any wrongdoing by Trump.

You are just making up accusations:

-the investigation has uncovered collusion and crimes by Hillary and Obama.

-Mueller is partisan.

As for “no wrongdoing by Trump”, the investigation isn’t just about Trump personally, but his campaign. Besides, i thought Trump only hires “the best people”. Apparently, “the best” means foreign agents and money launderers.

 

[Nous]

Legally speaking this is not correct. There are many circumstances were an employer, manager or supervisor can be held legally responsible for actions of an employee.

Apparently you are referring to the tort law doctrine of respondeat superior. A person cannot be convicted of a crime (note what I said in above post) under the criminal form of respondeat superior (which some jurisdictions do not recognize anyway) without being charged with a crime. Offhand, I am unaware of any case where an individual was charged with a vicarious liability crime short of authorizing the criminal act or otherwise knowingly tolerating the act. I don't know what crime Clinton could have been charged with simply because an employee of Hillary for America committed a crime, much less a crime based on the claim that “she should have known” something. Do you? Corporations are often charged with vicarious criminal liability as per se violations of the Sherman Act.

But I am not limiting this question to just the legal question. I am also asking from a ethical perspective. Is it the responsibility of the candidate to make sure those they hire to run their campaign do not violate election laws?

I wondered if you were asking about "responsibility" in the broadest terms. I can be alarmingly dumb about people, in trying to judge their character after only a couple of brief meetings with them. I really don't like holding a mere employer responsible for the bad behavior of someone they hire simply on the speculation that the employer "should have known" what crimes the employee might perpetrate. An honest, conscientious political candidate (I really don't think that's an oxymoronic concept) does want honest, conscientious law-abiding people working on their campaigns. But, of course, a political candidate also wants campaign workers who are competent and clever enough to help one win the election. When you look at the list of people who worked in the Hillary for America organization (Hillary for America-Organization and Staff of Hillary Clinton's 2016 Primary Campaign), it seems unlikely that Clinton personally vetted them all.

 

[fantome profane]

I wondered if you were asking about "responsibility" in the broadest terms.

Yes, that is what I am asking. Would she be responsible? In any sense.

When you look at the list of people who worked in the Hillary for America organization (Hillary for America-Organization and Staff of Hillary Clinton's 2016 Primary Campaign), it seems unlikely that Clinton personally vetted them all.

That is why I did specify that I was asking about a major player in the campaign, someone with whom the candidate worked closely. And the crime was a serious crime that involved the election and took place during the campaign (when the candidate was working closely with them)

 

[Shaul]

I have not seen any sign of that yet. At best I have seen allegations against others with no supporting evidence. Do you have anything from a valid source?

Are you talking about the allegations against Trump or against Mueller?

 

[Shaul]

You are just making up accusations:

-the investigation has uncovered collusion and crimes by Hillary and Obama.

-Mueller is partisan.

As for “no wrongdoing by Trump”, the investigation isn’t just about Trump personally, but his campaign. Besides, i thought Trump only hires “the best people”. Apparently, “the best” means foreign agents and money launderers.

Read the Nunce released memo.

 

[Shaul]

Ya but the investigation has been about Trump and his campaign. Not just Trump alone. RW media has been trying to spin it that way for a year. I can go back and look at one of my posts a year ago that said that same thing.

Don't let them distract you. There's plenty of russian smoke in the air, the fire is nearby. So you're saying that there is zero evidence of russian collusion with the Trump campaign?

That is what I am saying.

 

[Falvlun]

Read the Nunce released memo.

The Nunes memo? Haha. So, like I said. You’re just making up accusations.

 

[Shaul]

The Nunes memo? Haha. So, like I said. You’re just making up accusations.

So an official memorandum from the House Intelligence Committee isn’t evidence to you. But a discredited dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton is.

Nunes Statement on Release of HPSCI Memo

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Mr Mueller has yet to find any collusion or criminal act by Trump, despite spending millions. But his investigation has uncovered collusion and crimes by Democrats including Hillary Clinton and Obama.

We don't know yet if Mueller has found anything criminal about Trump, as the information isn't public at this time. Also, Mueller has found no such thing about Obama and Hillary, but that's what Trump claims. Since Mueller has an interview scheduled with Trump- it should become more clear if he's facing charges or not as that draws closer.

 

[Nous]

Yes, that is what I am asking. Would she be responsible? In any sense.
That is why I did specify that I was asking about a major player in the campaign, someone with whom the candidate worked closely. And the crime was a serious crime that involved the election and took place during the campaign (when the candidate was working closely with them)

Without evidence of someone's involvement (which which I include authorization or encouragement) of a criminal act, I am as reluctant to hold a person--including employers and supervisors--morally responsible for it as I am to hold the person legally responsible for it. I don't even like many aspects of the way the doctrine of respondeat superior has developed for corporations.

 

[Falvlun]

So an official memorandum from the House Intelligence Committee isn’t evidence to you. But a discredited dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton is.

Nunes Statement on Release of HPSCI Memo

The Nunes memo was a blatantly partisan hack job thoroughly ridiculed and debunked after weeks of hype.

The FBI even issued a rare statement:
“"With regard to the House Intelligence Committee's memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it," the FBI said in a statement. "As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy." source

It’s two main claims: that the FISA warrant for Carter Page was based primarily on the Steele Dossier, and that the political backing of the Steele Dossier was not disclosed to the FISA court, have been disproved.

Furthermore, the Nunes memo does not support your assertion of crimes by Hillary or that Mueller is partisan.

 

[Falvlun]

The Nunes memo was a blatantly partisan hack job thoroughly ridiculed and debunked after weeks of hype.

The FBI even issued a rare statement:
“"With regard to the House Intelligence Committee's memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it," the FBI said in a statement. "As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy." source

It’s two main claims: that the FISA warrant for Carter Page was based primarily on the Steele Dossier, and that the political backing of the Steele Dossier was not disclosed to the FISA court, have been disproved.

Furthermore, the Nunes memo does not support your assertion of crimes by Hillary or that Mueller is partisan.

Edit: as for the Steele Dossier, it has not been discredited. It is unverified in parts. Some parts have been verified. But that’s all really besides the point. I’m not basing my stance on the Steele Dossier.