It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let's Talk About Collusion/Conspiracy as it Applies to Trump Jr.

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

It may seem that way but the FEC rules make it clear that he didn't.
www.fec.gov...


Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer "exemption" as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone. The Commission has addressed applicability of this exemption to several situations involving volunteer activity by a foreign national, as explained below.


And before you jump down my throat about foreign governments;


Definition

The following groups and individuals are considered "foreign nationals" and are subject to the prohibition:

Foreign citizens (not including dual citizens of the United States);
Immigrants who are not lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
Foreign governments;
Foreign political parties;
Foreign corporations;
Foreign associations;
Foreign partnerships; and
Any other foreign principal, as defined at 22 U.S.C. § 611(b), which includes a foreign organization or “other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.”

edit on 12-7-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Dudemo5

It may seem that way but the FEC rules make it clear that he didn't.
www.fec.gov...


Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer "exemption" as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone. The Commission has addressed applicability of this exemption to several situations involving volunteer activity by a foreign national, as explained below.


And before you jump down my throat about foreign governments;


Definition

The following groups and individuals are considered "foreign nationals" and are subject to the prohibition:

Foreign citizens (not including dual citizens of the United States);
Immigrants who are not lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
Foreign governments;
Foreign political parties;
Foreign corporations;
Foreign associations;
Foreign partnerships; and
Any other foreign principal, as defined at 22 U.S.C. § 611(b), which includes a foreign organization or “other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.”



First, the "something of value" is not a personal service. It is information. The information itself has intrinsic value to the campaign.

This is information from a foreign country.

Trump Jr. Solicited it.

This is illegal.

At no point anywhere in this scenario is anyone offering to be a campaign "volunteer."
edit on 12-7-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

Yeah, that makes literally zero sense. So information is of value but service isn't? Furthermore, under your absurd interpretation, a foreign exchange student couldn't voluntarily perform opposition research for a campaign. Afterall, he would end up with information and that information would have intrinsic value.

That's asinine.

And yes, they're volunteering their personal services (their opposition research) to the campaign. At what point does trump Jr offer to pay them? Providing a service for free is volunteering.
edit on 12-7-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Dudemo5

Yeah, that makes literally zero sense. So information is of value but service isn't? Furthermore, under your absurd interpretation, a foreign exchange student couldn't voluntarily perform opposition research for a campaign. Afterall, he would end up with information and that information would have intrinsic value.

That's asinine.


It makes perfect sense.

The provision you cited is to allow people/entities to "volunteer" for a campaign, provided they do not make a contribution.

Are you aware of what campaign volunteers do? Under no reasonable definition would any actor involved in this scenario qualify as a campaign volunteer.

And the "information" being offered was quite clearly a donation of "something of value."

This was illegal.

Trump Jr. Solicited something of value from a foreign national in direct violation of this federal statute.

Ultimately, if Trump Jr. was prosecuted, this would be a matter for the courts. I doubt anyone could find any precedent where a situation like this would qualify someone as a "volunteer" under that exception.
edit on 12-7-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

He did not solicit because there was nothing there to solicit. You can only solicit something if something exists. If you ask God to give you 1 trillion dollars, you are not soliciting money from God. Because what you ask for does not exist.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Dudemo5

He did not solicit because there was nothing there to solicit. You can only solicit something if something exists. If you ask God to give you 1 trillion dollars, you are not soliciting money from God. Because what you ask for does not exist.


You are wrong. Solicitation does not require the information to have existed.

Here's the legal definition of solicitation: A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

He did not know who he was meeting with. Natalia is a white woman. How would he know she is a Russian national? Therefore, no law broken.
edit on 12-7-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Dudemo5

There is no proof he was asking Natalia for information. He asked Natalia if she has it. That's not soliciting.


In the emails he clearly states he would be delighted if the information is as described and a follow-up meeting should be arranged where he can receive said information.

That is solicitation.
edit on 12-7-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

He would be delighted. Anyone would be delighted. That's not the same thing as soliciting. If God gives me 1 trillion dollars, heck yeah I'd be delighted. That doesn't mean I am soliciting God for 1 trillion dollars.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

LOL you're insane. Did you even read the examples giving the precedent in the fec link? Here, I'll post them.


In AO 2014-20 (Make Your Laws PAC), the Commission concluded that a political action committee could accept assistance from a foreign national in developing intellectual property for the PAC, such as trademarks, graphics, and website design because the services accepted by the PAC would fall under the volunteer exemption.

Similarly, in AO 2004-26 (Weller), the Commission held that a foreign national could attend, speak at campaign events for a federal candidate, and solicit contributions to the campaign. However, the Commission cautioned that the foreign national could not manage or participate in any of the campaign committee’s decision-making processes. See also AOs 2007-22 (Hurysz) and 1987-25 (Otaola).

In MUR 5987, the Commission examined a situation in which a foreign national provided an uncompensated musical concert performance as a volunteer for a federal candidate’s campaign as part of a fundraising event. The candidate’s campaign had paid all of the costs of hosting the concert, including the rental of the venue and equipment and providing security. The performer had merely provided his uncompensated volunteer services to the campaign and had not participated in any of the campaign’s decision-making. Based on these facts, the Commission found no reason to believe that the foreign national or the federal candidate’s committee had violated the Act’s foreign national prohibition.


Pretty much, a foreign national can do anything in a campaign as long as they're not compensated.
edit on 12-7-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Dudemo5

There is no proof he was asking Natalia for information. He asked Natalia if she has it. That's not soliciting.


He knew the person he would be meeting would be providing him with the information described in the emails.

From the emails: "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

This is a solicitation of something of value from a foreign national.

This is illegal.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

The information didn't exist. It was a joke by Ron Goldstone. If Trump Jr asked a Russian hooker at a club for information of Hillary, so what? That's not a crime.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Dudemo5

LOL you're insane. Did you even read the examples giving the precedent in the fec link? Here, I'll post them.


In AO 2014-20 (Make Your Laws PAC), the Commission concluded that a political action committee could accept assistance from a foreign national in developing intellectual property for the PAC, such as trademarks, graphics, and website design because the services accepted by the PAC would fall under the volunteer exemption.

Similarly, in AO 2004-26 (Weller), the Commission held that a foreign national could attend, speak at campaign events for a federal candidate, and solicit contributions to the campaign. However, the Commission cautioned that the foreign national could not manage or participate in any of the campaign committee’s decision-making processes. See also AOs 2007-22 (Hurysz) and 1987-25 (Otaola).

In MUR 5987, the Commission examined a situation in which a foreign national provided an uncompensated musical concert performance as a volunteer for a federal candidate’s campaign as part of a fundraising event. The candidate’s campaign had paid all of the costs of hosting the concert, including the rental of the venue and equipment and providing security. The performer had merely provided his uncompensated volunteer services to the campaign and had not participated in any of the campaign’s decision-making. Based on these facts, the Commission found no reason to believe that the foreign national or the federal candidate’s committee had violated the Act’s foreign national prohibition.


You're the one whose crazy if you can't tell the difference between people helping to do fund raising activities or offer speaking engagements and someone who is directly offering a contribution of information.

If you're running for President, and I offer to put on a show for you -- I am volunteering my services.

If I offer to help you with graphic design, I am volunteering my services.

If I offer to put on a show for people, I am volunteering my services.

But if I approach your campaign with something of value (in this case information) from a foreign national, I am *not* volunteering my services. I am essentially offering *YOU* a donation.
edit on 12-7-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Dudemo5

The information didn't exist. It was a joke by Ron Goldstone. If Trump Jr asked a Russian hooker at a club for information of Hillary, so what? That's not a crime.


There is nothing about that email chain that suggests "joke."

Nor has Trump Jr. claimed he thought it was a joke.

Again, whether the information existed is irrelevant to the crime of solicitation.
edit on 12-7-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

LMAO we are talking about campaign FINANCE laws and the foreign nationals doing fund raisers are literally helping deposit money in the bank accounts of campaigns. And that's ok, but in your world offering some info is beyond the pale? You're insane.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

So what if it's a crime? It's only 100 bucks.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Dudemo5

LMAO we are talking about campaign FINANCE laws and the foreign nationals doing fund raisers are literally helping deposit money in the bank accounts of campaigns. And that's ok, but in your world offering some info is beyond the pale? You're insane.


I'm just trying to help you understand the law.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

LOL I have a degree for that.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Dudemo5

So what if it's a crime?


And that's really the heart of the issue here, isn't it? You don't care whether a crime was committed. In the future, perhaps you could just skip the pretense and say so up front.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Dudemo5

LOL I have a degree for that.


Perhaps you could leverage said degree in your intellectual pursuits here.

Unless these aren't intellectual pursuits?




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join