You cannot act as an agent of a foreign country without registering yourself as such.

I had no trouble locating iut with Google. And I'd bet you can do so too

... ask a question here if you could get the answer on Google. If you don't want to answer, just don't take the trouble.

Or anywhere. It’s annoying.

I agree with you. It's rude.

Um, yeah. Take that however you will. /s

Why google when they have us?

...interacting with people over interacting with algorithms.

either.

Google provides plenty on nonsense. DU has scores of participants ready and willing to kick nonsense around the block. For example, Google "echinacea tea benefits" and find out that the herbal tea fights the common cold, cancer, and about a dozen health issues. Oh, really? DUers would form a consensus, something like "herb tea fights dehydration."

in Furtherance of Russian Interests

Note: View the indictment here ...

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-rt-employees-indicted-covertly-funding-and-directing-us-company-published-thousands

Let Me Google That For You

..I can recall hearing that word.

And it would have taken me to a bunch of legalese that I might or might not have been able to interpret.

I like DU people (some of them) better.

It’s perfectly legal to act as a propagandist for Russia… but you need to tell the rest of the country that you are acting on behalf of Russia

for Egypt but did not register as such...
m

Assuming by "the influencers" you mean the Dave Rubins and Tim Pools of this affair, both named and unnamed thus far.

FARA violations require intent. They have to knowingly be acting as agents of a foreign power. Being a useful idiot ought to be embarrassing and discrediting, but if done in ignorance is not a crime by itself.

Them or attacking the US government over this. I feel very confident that if you go to the best source, (us gov) you will get a sufficient answer.

Where, exactly, would you suggest I go? Call up the DOJ 800 number?

See my comment above about DU vs other avenues.

Why is it that some people here insist on attributing bad motives to simple requests for information??????

... more to the point, compared to helpful people here on DU who are happy to take 30 seconds to share some information they happen to have.

Much more info and links in this thread:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219429669

Fully and freely available online.

I suggest you go and read it. That way, you will have a definitive answer to your question that isn't dependent on someone's faulty understanding.

Getting information firsthand is always preferable if you want the facts.

Of course, if you are asking the question for a different reason, then never mind.

Several nice people have given me succinct and understandable answers. THAT'S preferable to wading through a bunch of legalese, even if I had figured out the search words to find the indictment.

On top of getting clear, quick answers, I've gotten some interesting commentary on interacting on DU. Conversation is more fun than research, I find.

to be somewhat, or wholly, misinterpreted. Reading the actual indictment, as has been suggested to you, eliminates that. Why would you not want to be certain that you have it right? That makes no sense to me at all.

...of doing primary research on every question you might have.

No such requirement exists.

It quite literally is the answer to your question.

If you can get someone else to do it for you and give you a precis of the indictment, you can avoid the work. Even if you get incomplete or incorrect answers and don't know which answers are correct.

... which people are probably giving correct replies. And the multiplicity of those same replies makes them more and more reliable.

will not only provide actual clarity, but also the law that has been violated. In a single step that is always accurate when an indictment is that document.

Maybe you're not old enough yet to have learned that.

All you gotta do is click and read.

I havent read it, but im confident the doj knows the law, put it in front of a grand jury, and got an indictment.

...before I asked the question, I hadn't seen it.

Sorry for the bizarre reactions. Seemed like a simple question to me.

while bashing you over the head for failing to read something no one else can explain.

I researched it, so I can't claim how unclear/clear which laws or violations specifically are in question, and how much weight legally speaking do these laws have. I believe Manafort did a hell of a lot more than merely failed to report.

at the end of the day, do the violations amount to any serious felony criminal charges which ultimately translates to serious prison time? or is just a relatively small fine with a slap on the wrist?
I know we should care, or at least I do. On the other hand, if the DOJ is just making press, without anything serious behind the charges, then what's this all about and the end of the day?

But thanks for your support.

.... but not being a registered foriegn agent - as required to do so if acting domestically.

There might also be money laundering charges too in this tangled web of deceit. Using sophisticated tools of perception management and propaganda techniques to mold and manipulate public opinions to achieve a preferred result.

... pretty comfortable accepting this as true-- without researching it myself on Google as others have suggested.

Thanks!!!

I'm 78 and have more patience and good will than a lot of people seem to have this afternoon. Asking questions doesn't hurt anyone. Nor does it use up anyone's time unless they let it. If you don't want to answer a question, don't. Seems pretty simple to me. Why spend time grousing over it seems a waste of time and effort. Besides, it seems a bit rude.

Here is the link to the actual indictment:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1366266/dl

Since nobody provided you with the exact law citations, I simply clicked the link in the thread to the actual indictment, where I found them near the end of the document, where charges are made in the proper legal format. So, you have your answer. Now, you can go and study the actual "exact laws" to understand what is going on. Of course, you can also read the indictment, which provided details about the activities that led to the charges. I found those details very interesting, but I see no reason to restate them here, since they are available at the link.

On Count 1
Title 18, United States Code, Section 371

On Count 2
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(2)(A)

Applicable Forfeiture Laws
Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981 and 982;
Title 21, United States Code, Section 853; and
Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461

If you copy those and use them as search information, Google will link you to the actual law, which you can study at your leisure.

Note: It took me less than two minutes to find those "exact laws" for you.

No charge. It was too easy.

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2024, 05:27 PM - Edit history (1)

So you didn't actually want the exact laws that were violated. You just wanted a one-sentence summary.

Ask for what you actually want, and someone will probably give it to you. But you didn't do that. Not even close.

It was collusion all along, and these guys were holding all the bags of money:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219429162