30 Oct 19
@sleepyguy saidIt can if you are Nixon breaking into Watergate or Obama hacking into computer systems to try and ascertain what the press is going to report and who are their contacts.
Common sense dictates that seeking information cannot be against the law.
@no1marauder saidOthers disagree of course. Here's a former FEC commissioner:
My "partisan legal position" is one already adopted by the FEC and the courts.
It's rather ironic that your argument just proves how valuable this "thing of value" was to Trump. I guess that's why he willing to exercise his "First Amendment right" to withhold appropriated military aid to the Ukraine unless he got it.
Here’s the bottom line: A federal candidate who is freely given information is not receiving a “contribution” or “thing of value” and is thus not violating federal campaign finance law or the regulations issued by the Federal Election Commission. I know. I served as an FEC commissioner.
If getting dirt on an opponent were a “thing of value,” then any adverse information concerning a candidate—even informed criticism of a rival’s policy proposals—would also have to be considered a “thing of value,” and both would have to listed as a financial “contribution” to a campaign.
Such a broad interpretation of the law would be potentially unconstitutional and impractical to administer or enforce. Moreover, it is not a position that has been taken by the FEC.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/06/28/sorry-media-talking-to-foreigners-does-not-violate-federal-campaign-laws/
And here's Jonathan Turley:
Some have argued that information can be a “thing of value” under federal election laws. If so, receiving information from a foreign government could violate the ban on such contributions. However, I have always viewed such arguments as too sweeping. Obviously, there is a great deal of information that passes from government sources, including information acquired by the Clinton campaign from foreign intelligence figures in the Steele Dossier. The loose interpretation given to any “information” as a “thing of value” would raise serious first amendment concerns that I have discussed in earlier columns.
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/06/13/trump-i-would-accept-dirt-on-political-opponents-if-offered-by-foreign-governments/comment-page-2/
30 Oct 19
@sleepyguy saidOf course, Trump was soliciting such information, it was not being "freely given". Candidates normally pay people and groups for such information.And I could list many court cases which have found intangibles such as information as "things of value" in many different areas of the law and criminal convictions have been sustained because of that interpretation.
Others disagree of course. Here's a former FEC commissioner:
[quote]Here’s the bottom line: A federal candidate who is freely given information is not receiving a “contribution” or “thing of value” and is thus not violating federal campaign finance law or the regulations issued by the Federal Election Commission. I know. I served as an FEC commissioner.
If getting dir ...[text shortened]... 3/trump-i-would-accept-dirt-on-political-opponents-if-offered-by-foreign-governments/comment-page-2/
31 Oct 19
A couple of tantalizing tidbits from a Hill article today:
"On Wednesday, news broke that former national security adviser John Bolton had been invited to give a deposition on Nov. 7. "
AND:
"NBC News also reported that Vindman, during his testimony, said that aid to Ukraine and a White House visit for Zelensky had been made “contingent” upon Ukraine beginning multiple investigations — exactly the kind of quid pro quo that Trump has repeatedly denied."
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/468222-the-memo-after-vindman-gop-anxiety-deepens
@sleepyguy saidIn reviewing your quoted articles, I note that both were in response to Trump's interview with George Stephanopoulos back in June where the Donald was asked the hypothetical question whether he would accept dirt regarding political opponents offered by a foreign government. Of course, that question is not relevant to what actually occurred regarding Trump and the Ukraine; its government did not "offer" anything, instead Trump pressed them to open an investigation into Biden. And that is a violation of campaign finance laws:
Others disagree of course. Here's a former FEC commissioner:
[quote]Here’s the bottom line: A federal candidate who is freely given information is not receiving a “contribution” or “thing of value” and is thus not violating federal campaign finance law or the regulations issued by the Federal Election Commission. I know. I served as an FEC commissioner.
If getting dir ...[text shortened]... 3/trump-i-would-accept-dirt-on-political-opponents-if-offered-by-foreign-governments/comment-page-2/
"Trump’s direct request that Ukrainian President Zelensky work with Trump’s personal lawyer and use Ukraine’s government resources to investigate Trump’s political opponent served no apparent purpose other than to benefit Trump’s reelection efforts. In other words, Trump solicited a campaign contribution from President Zelensky.
In the campaign finance world, a “contribution” is any “thing of value” given to affect an election.
There is no doubt that a foreign government’s search for damaging information about a candidate’s political opponent would be valuable to that candidate. As Special Counsel Mueller noted, “[a] foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money or tangible things of value.”
By directly requesting or suggesting that President Zelensky use Ukraine’s resources to help his reelection efforts, Trump violated campaign finance law.
(More technically, Trump asked Ukraine to make an “expenditure” by spending resources for the purpose of the influencing the 2020 election. An “expenditure” that is coordinated with a candidate is a campaign contribution; “coordinated” means made at the “request or suggestion” of a candidate. So Trump requesting that Ukraine make an expenditure means that he solicited a contribution.)"
https://campaignlegal.org/update/yes-president-trump-violated-campaign-finance-law-asking-ukraine-favor
Here's the relevant statute:
"U.S. Code § 30121.Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—
(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B)a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C)an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2)a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national."
The Donald was clearly soliciting the Ukrainian President to use the country's prosecutorial resources to investigate Biden for the benefit of Trump's re-election campaign. That, SG, would have been an illegal contribution and it is irrelevant that the Ukraine refused to do so; the violation was complete when Trump solicited it.
31 Oct 19
@sleepyguy saidMore recently, Turley, before lapsing into "whataboutism", conceded:
Others disagree of course. Here's a former FEC commissioner:
[quote]Here’s the bottom line: A federal candidate who is freely given information is not receiving a “contribution” or “thing of value” and is thus not violating federal campaign finance law or the regulations issued by the Federal Election Commission. I know. I served as an FEC commissioner.
If getting dir ...[text shortened]... 3/trump-i-would-accept-dirt-on-political-opponents-if-offered-by-foreign-governments/comment-page-2/
" there is no question that the use of public office for personal gain is an impeachable offense, including the withholding of military aid in exchange for the investigation of a political opponent. You just have to prove it happened. If you can establish intent to use public office for personal gain, you have a viable impeachment offense."
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/467144-repulsed-by-the-lynching-scandal-just-wait-for-the-impeachment-trial
31 Oct 19
@mott-the-hoople saidExactly. We already have the transcripts of the call. He has nothing to offer but opinion to dramatize the issue.
How does any of this give him the ability to change what Trump said in the phone call?
31 Oct 19
@Mott-The-Hoople
Trump REMOVED words from the 'summary' and BTW, if you actually READ that piece of shyte Trump produced, the very first sentence says, NOT complete.
Doing your Putin's bidding again.
31 Oct 19
@metal-brain saidA) The "transcript" wasn't a transcript (it says so right on it) and it has now been shown that words and phrases were omitted from it (though Trump has repeatedly lied and said it was an exact transcript);
Exactly. We already have the transcripts of the call. He has nothing to offer but opinion to dramatize the issue.
B) Vindman gave first hand testimony about various meetings where Sondland made it clear that a "quid pro quo" was presented to the Ukrainians.
31 Oct 19
@Sleepyguy
So you figure if Trump *god forbid* wins in 2020 BECAUSE of dirt gotten by pressuring a foreign government by withholding military aid to the tune of 400 million dollars is not a thing of value? Tell me again what planet you are from?
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147482
31 Oct 19
@no1marauder
"A) The "transcript" wasn't a transcript (it says so right on it)"
a transcript that says it isn't a transcript...LOL you fuking idiot!
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147482
31 Oct 19
@sonhouse saidI will play...what were those words?
@Mott-The-Hoople
Trump REMOVED words from the 'summary' and BTW, if you actually READ that piece of shyte Trump produced, the very first sentence says, NOT complete.
Doing your Putin's bidding again.
31 Oct 19
@mott-the-hoople saidNo, the idiots are the ones who keep believing it's a transcript because Donald Trump tells them so even though it states it isn't.
@no1marauder
"A) The "transcript" wasn't a transcript (it says so right on it)"
a transcript that says it isn't a transcript...LOL you fuking idiot!
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147482
31 Oct 19
@no1marauder saidwell where are all the objections from schitt and the democrats? dumbass!
No, the idiots are the ones who keep believing it's a transcript because Donald Trump tells them so even though it states it isn't.