Enjoy President Trump, Courtesy of The Kremlin

[Brian Peacock]

Well, they can't have it both ways can they L'Emmy?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but the intent of the law is to prevent foreign entities being able to gain influence through donations or contributions to a campaign. A promise of favorable action upon taking office in return for such donations or contributions is exactly the sort of action the law was intended to stop.

I mean the Trump inner circle cannot reasonably claim that the Trump Tower meeting was legal only because no Russian Intel was forthcoming but after arranging the meeting on the understanding that it would be. It's like saying the burglary was not illegal because the safe was empty when you got there.

[Hermit]

It's like saying the burglary was not illegal because the safe was empty when you got there.

That seems to be 4.2's last ditch defence of the matter.

[Forty Two]

It's like saying the burglary was not illegal because the safe was empty when you got there.

That seems to be 4.2's last ditch defence of the matter.

The breaking and entering is still a crime, but if nothing was stolen then there is no theft to go with it. That's the difference.

Here, in the case of the information, getting information is not a crime, and also agreeing to meet with someone who says they have information to provide you is not a crime.

[Hermit]

It's like saying the burglary was not illegal because the safe was empty when you got there.

That seems to be 4.2's last ditch defence of the matter.

The breaking and entering is still a crime, but if nothing was stolen then there is no theft to go with it. That's the difference.

Here, in the case of the information, getting information is not a crime, and also agreeing to meet with someone who says they have information to provide you is not a crime.

An attempt to get help from a foreign power in order to change the outcome of an election is not illegal if it fails? Pull the other one. It plays Waltzing Matilda.

[Forty Two]

So as long as Trump Jnr et el either paid for info or promised something in lieu of payment, such as a promise of some sort of action, then a secret meeting with agents of a foreign power is totally legal, and therefore, by an appeal to statute, non-problematic. This actually seems a far more likely scenario than the Russian government offering to donate compromising info beneficial to the campaign out of the goodness of their heart.

I don't think that 'a promise of some sort of action' in return for a donation/contribution gets the campaign off the hook. It's still a donation/contribution from a foreign person or entity (which is against the law) and I think that actually a promise of favorable action once in office, if confirmed as having been given by the campaign, would be damning.

Well, they can't have it both ways can they L'Emmy?

You are missing the point. The argument advanced regarding the foreign person, Steele, providing information is that it's not a contribution/donation because it was contracted for and paid for. The question raised thereafter was whether it would be illegal if offered to Clinton for free. And, if not, would there then be a rule that you could buy the information, but not get it for free.

However, at bottom, if I'm a candidate for office, and three guys, one Brit, one Frog and one Russkie come to my campaign office and offer me a folder full of true and accurate dirt on my opposition, while it is arguable that such information is valuable, the providing of information has never been included among the term 'thing of value.'

I mean, what if in 2016 Boris Badanov offered Hillary Clinton proof that Donald Trump had laundered money through the First Russian Bank and that the money was funneled to the Trump campaign coffers as a way to pretend he was running his campaign on a "shoestring budget" when really he had hundreds of millions in dirty money working for him? Would it be a crime for Hillary to meet with Boris Badanov for the purpose of seeing if he has pertinent information to give? Would it be a crime to accept that information?

What's to be done with such information? We are to have a political system which insulates people from negative information about them because that information comes from a non-American?

Yet that, it seems to me, can’t be right. It would raise obvious First Amendment problems: First, noncitizens, and likely even non-permanent-residents, in the United States have broad First Amendment rights. See Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945) (“freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country”); Underwager v. Channel 9 Australia, 69 F.3d 361 (9th Cir. 1995) (“We conclude that the speech protections of the First Amendment at a minimum apply to all persons legally within our borders,” including ones who are not permanent residents).

Second, Americans have the right to receive information even from speakers who are entirely abroad. See Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965). Can Americans — whether political candidates or anyone else — really be barred from asking questions of foreigners, just because the answers might be especially important to voters?

The Supreme Court did affirm (without opinion) a federal court decision in Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281 (D.D.C. 2011), that upheld a ban on contributions and independent expenditures by non-citizen non-permanent-residents, on the theory that the government can use such a ban to limit foreign influence on American elections. But the panel decision expressly stressed that it was limited to the restriction on spending money. And it seems to me that restrictions on providing information to the campaigns — or on campaigns seeking such information — can’t be constitutional. Can it really be that the Clinton campaign could be legally required to just ignore credible allegations of misconduct by Trump, just because those allegations were levied by foreigners?

Now this whole controversy is of course arising as to Donald Trump Jr.’s willingness to get unspecified information that came from the Russian government, and was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Maybe it should and could be made illegal for a campaign to solicit or accept information that directly or indirectly came from a foreign government — though even that’s not clear to me: If a Canadian government official had informed the Clinton campaign of some possibly illegal conduct in the development of one of Trump’s Canadian properties, I don’t think it could be made a crime for the Clinton campaign to accept that information and ask for more. (It certainly is illegal to deliberately conspire with anyone, foreign or domestic, to hack into someone’s computer; but so far I haven’t heard evidence that Donald Trump Jr. was doing that.

those rules ban contributions of “things of value” by all foreign citizens (except those who are also U.S. citizens or permanent residents), and the argument is that politically useful information about a candidate’s opponent is in general a thing of value. If that is the right way to construe the statute banning foreign contributions, then the statute does cover all the examples that I gave, and is therefore “substantially overbroad” and thus facially unconstitutional (at least as to such information), regardless of whether a narrower statute could ban the particular kind of speech involved here. But if we avoid the overbreadth by construing “things of value” as not including information (or as not including one-off information that isn’t in the form of a standard commercially distributed product, such as poll results or prospective contributor lists), then Donald Trump Jr.’s expression of willingness to accept such information from foreigners (including ones linked to foreign governments) wouldn’t be covered by the statute.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 22afab16be

Much of my discussions on this issue are raised in that article.

[Forty Two]

It's like saying the burglary was not illegal because the safe was empty when you got there.

That seems to be 4.2's last ditch defence of the matter.

The breaking and entering is still a crime, but if nothing was stolen then there is no theft to go with it. That's the difference.

Here, in the case of the information, getting information is not a crime, and also agreeing to meet with someone who says they have information to provide you is not a crime.

An attempt to get help from a foreign power in order to change the outcome of an election is not illegal if it fails? Pull the other one. It plays Waltzing Matilda.

Stop purposefully misreading what I write. I did not suggest that attempting to do an illegal act is not illegal just because the attempt failed.

What I'm saying is that what Donald Trump Jr. did is not illegal under the campaign finance law cited as being the law he violated. That's the law discussed in the article I just posted above.

There is no law that says a person cannot "attempt to get help from a foreign power." There are laws, but those laws say what they say. So, if you say he violated the campaign finance "contribution/donation from a foreign person" law by accepting or trying to get info which is a "thing of value" then set forth your argument. I've set forth mine. If there is another law you think that applies, cite it and let's discuss it.

Read the WSJ article I just posted. It explains why "providing info/dirt" is not the same thing as money and cannot be considered a "thing of value" proscribed by the law.

[Brian Peacock]

It's like saying the burglary was not illegal because the safe was empty when you got there.

That seems to be 4.2's last ditch defence of the matter.

The breaking and entering is still a crime, but if nothing was stolen then there is no theft to go with it. That's the difference.

Here, in the case of the information, getting information is not a crime, and also agreeing to meet with someone who says they have information to provide you is not a crime.

You really don't want to engage with the fact that the Trump inner circle, by it's own admission, arranged and proceeded with a secret meeting on the understanding that a foreign power was willing to provide intel on Hillary, nor with the consequence of a foreign power providing something of value to a domestic election campaign.

"Yeahbut HIlllary/Democrats... ... ..." in 3... 2... 1.

[Brian Peacock]

... So, if you say he violated the campaign finance "contribution/donation from a foreign person" law by accepting or trying to get info which is a "thing of value" then set forth your argument. ...

So it's illegal only if you succeed in trying to get assistance from a foreign power, but not if you fail??

"I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."

[Hermit]

It's like saying the burglary was not illegal because the safe was empty when you got there.

That seems to be 4.2's last ditch defence of the matter.

The breaking and entering is still a crime, but if nothing was stolen then there is no theft to go with it. That's the difference.

Here, in the case of the information, getting information is not a crime, and also agreeing to meet with someone who says they have information to provide you is not a crime.

An attempt to get help from a foreign power in order to change the outcome of an election is not illegal if it fails? Pull the other one. It plays Waltzing Matilda.

Stop purposefully misreading what I write. I did not suggest that attempting to do an illegal act is not illegal just because the attempt failed.

What I'm saying is that what Donald Trump Jr. did is not illegal under the campaign finance law cited as being the law he violated. That's the law discussed in the article I just posted above.

There is no law that says a person cannot "attempt to get help from a foreign power." There are laws, but those laws say what they say. So, if you say he violated the campaign finance "contribution/donation from a foreign person" law by accepting or trying to get info which is a "thing of value" then set forth your argument. I've set forth mine. If there is another law you think that applies, cite it and let's discuss it.

Read the WSJ article I just posted. It explains why "providing info/dirt" is not the same thing as money and cannot be considered a "thing of value" proscribed by the law.

The WSJ is mostly paywalled, and I can't find a link to it anyway, so I guess you are referring to your link concerning the opinion piece by Eugene Volokh in the WaPo. Yes, it's an opinion piece by an arch conservative, libertarian law professor who proposes that the applicable law does not regard any non-material thing as "a thing of value". I am not surprised that he fails to quote chapter and verse of that law in support of his particular definition of "thing of value".

Now, look at what happened according to this article:

The June 3, 2016, email sent to Donald Trump Jr. could hardly have been more explicit: One of his father’s former Russian business partners had been contacted by a senior Russian government official and was offering to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

If the future president’s eldest son was surprised or disturbed by the provenance of the promised material — or the notion that it was part of a continuing effort by the Russian government to aid his father’s campaign — he gave no indication.

He replied within minutes: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”

Beats me how this cannot be considered to be "a thing of value" offered by a foreign power seeking to influence the US presidential election and actively sought by Trump's team. Your (and Volokh's) sophistry is breathtaking.

That said, in my opinion this particular law should be scrapped. I see nothing wrong with obtaining incriminating information concerning one's opponent from foreign powers. Incriminating information is incriminating, no matter where it is sourced from. Foreign powers using fake accounts in order to flood Facebook and Twitter with partisan messages and ads is another matter, but that is not what we are talking about right now.

[Tero]

Politico:
The aggressive Republican attacks on the FBI are the latest sign – if one were needed – that President Donald Trump has upended the longstanding norms of Washington, as he and his allies in Congress seek to undermine the one institution of government that conservatives have typically seen as a bastion of integrity and law-and-order.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/ ... ans-389076

[L'Emmerdeur]

Though Forty Two linked to a Washington Post article, there is a Wall Street Journal article about this topic that was referred to in the Washington Post piece, and it quotes two lawyers who specialize in federal campaign law. Eugene Volokh (who wrote the article in The Washington Post) on the other hand does not specialize in federal campaign law. His field of specialization is broad: 'free speech law, tort law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, ... First Amendment ... copyright law, criminal law, and ... firearms regulation policy.' His approach to the topic is based on his advocacy of free speech, rather than any comprehensive analysis of federal campaign laws.

Back to that Wall Street Journal article. The WSJ is paywalled, but it's possible to read just about any article from it once you know its title. Simply go to Twitter and do a Twitter search for the title. Inevitably there will be a tweet with a link to the article. Using a Twitter link to the WSJ will give full access to the article in question. For this one, the relevant tweet is here.

In that article, both election-law scholar Richard Hasen at UC Irvine and Lawrence Noble, a former Federal Election Commission general counsel weigh in and their analyses don't support Volokh, though they admit that this isn't a 'slam-dunk indictment.'

The new emails [in which the offer by a Russian of 'dirt' is accepted by Trump Jr.] don’t amount to a slam-dunk indictment of Mr. Trump Jr., the legal experts say, but could help build a criminal or civil-enforcement case.

“There is a serious issue here for the special counsel to investigate,” said election-law scholar Richard Hasen at the University of California, Irvine, referring to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

...

That Mr. Trump Jr. came away empty-handed may be a mitigating factor, but as a defense, it is limited. Soliciting a foreign campaign contribution can be illegal even if the donation doesn’t pan out. What matters is that there was an expectation of getting something valuable.

Opposition research on a political foe could be considered something of value, particularly if the supplier of the information spent money to obtain it, election-law experts say. The Federal Election Commission has said the definition can encompass goods or services, like air travel or food, provided free or at below-market rates. Information can be a gift too, like polling data or donor lists.

...

Lawrence Noble, a former FEC general counsel, said he thinks Mr. Trump Jr. solicited an illegal foreign contribution.

“He was told this was coming from the Russian government and was part of their effort to help Donald Trump,” said Mr. Noble, who is now senior director and general counsel at the campaign-finance watchdog Campaign Legal Center. “He eagerly accepted it and agreed to meet with her. He clearly solicited a foreign contribution, with the contribution being the value of the information.”

[Tero]

Trump tweets that memo 'totally vindicates' him in Russia probe
CNN

[Tero]

Nunes Played The Press Like A Fiddle. Why Do Journalists Keep Falling For This Trick?

https://www.motherjones.com/media/2018/ ... his-trick/

[L'Emmerdeur]

Another expert on campaign finance law presents an analysis that disagrees with Volokh's attempt to make defending case. Bauer did work for Obama, so I suppose one could discount anything he says.

'Election Law Expert Robert Bauer on What Don Jr.’s Emails Mean for the President'

[Q.] Campaigns seek out damaging information about their opponents all the time. What makes this Donald Trump Jr. situation unique?

[A.] The law specifically prohibits soliciting or accepting anything of value from a foreign national. When we talk about information, which is a very general term – we could be talking about research reports, polling data, a cache of emails — they have value. The election laws pick up, for this particular prohibition, and in other provisions as well, contributions that consist of something in kind. Something that is not acquired with cash, something that is received in the form that somebody else procured and paid for it.

...

[Q.] Okay. Federal election laws say that foreign nationals or foreign governments can’t contribute a “thing of value” to a presidential campaign. What does that actually mean?

[A.] “Thing of value,” anything of value, also applies to contributions across the board, not just contributions from foreign nationals. And the theory behind it is fairly straightforward, which is you can, for example, pay for a hall to hold a rally in. Find the cash, pay the rental. Or the owner of the hall can just provide it to you. And if the owner of the hall provides it to you, the owner of the hall’s not providing you with cash, the owner of the hall is providing you with a venue for an event and it’s fundamentally the same thing to you. It’s the same value to you as if, in fact, you had purchased it yourself.

So, the “thing of value” limitation is designed to pick up so-called “in-kind” contributions. Not just contributions as cash. Without it, the elections laws would basically be made somewhat nonsensical. There would be no reason to have a contribution limit if the easy way around it was to simply avoid paying cash and to simply provide, in concrete form, whatever it was that the campaign wanted.

...

[Q.] How difficult would it be to litigate a “thing of value” in court?

[A.] There’s a complicated line of cases and law that have to do with “what does it mean to coordinate with an organization that’s spending money.” Sometimes, the candidate says, “Well, I’m engaged in free speech. The organization is engaged in free speech.” There has to be some limit to how far you can regulate communication between allies. So, I go to see somebody who I think is a supporter and I tell that person something about my campaign that I’m trying to accomplish. Three months later the supporter puts advertising on the air. The supporter is going to say, “Well, that’s my free speech. I’m just taking informed speech and putting it on the air.” I don’t know that you can see that free-speech defense applying here. It seems to me – and I think there’s law on this point – the foreign-national prohibition is for a very different purpose and the free-speech interests here are significantly attenuated.

The purpose of the foreign-national prohibition is to defend the larger political community, as a court recently said. This goes to a fundamental question of defining and protecting what we consider to be the political community entitled to participate in the choice of our elected leaders, and so the breadth of the government’s interest, the scope of the government’s interest, is very broad and very strong, and for that reason some of the free-speech defenses in the coordination world, or in the cases of coordination that you oftentimes see in the domestic sphere, don’t have nearly that force. And I don’t think it ultimately would be upheld in the case where we’re talking about involving a foreign government coordinating with a campaign to win an election in the United States.

[L'Emmerdeur]

One of the main talking points in the Nunes memo, that it was undisclosed in the FISA warrant application that Steele's work was done for Clinton, is actually standard practice in government filings, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Twitter link to the article: 'Memo’s Release Escalates Clash Over Russia Probe; Trump Says It "Totally Vindicates" Him'

The memo is critical of Mr. Steele and notes that prosecutors in their application for the warrant didn’t explicitly state that he was working for a firm funded by Democrats. But the FISA application did disclose Mr. Steele was being paid by a law firm working for a major political party, according to a person familiar with the matter. Redacting the names of U.S. people or organizations who aren’t the subject of an investigation is a common practice in government legal filings, designed to protect privacy.