It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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. UPDATE: Just to clarify, as best I can tell there was no indication from the e-mails that Trump Jr. thought the information was the result of a hack; this happened before the hack of the DNC was revealed, and the Russian government could have many sources of “official documents and information” — for instance, dealings between Clinton and Russian officials — that would come through means other than hacks or other crimes.)
But, again, the First Amendment overbreadth analysis asks whether the statute is substantially overbroad — whether it applies to a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech. If it is, then it can’t be applied against a defendant even if the defendant could have been convicted under a narrower statute.
I’m inclined to think that even a narrow statute barring American campaigns from receiving “very high level and sensitive information” from foreign governments would be unconstitutional. If the Hillary Clinton campaign had reason to think that, say, the British government had “very high level and sensitive information” showing serious misbehavior by Trump, I think it would have had every right to get that information and see if it should be put before the American people as evidence that Trump shouldn’t be elected. Limiting candidates’ ability to expose their opponents’ misbehavior would violate the First Amendment, and no interest in “barring foreign interference” could justify such a restriction. Indeed, denying candidates this right to get such information and convey it to voters would itself interfere with “the right of the American people themselves to decide who our elected officials and representatives are.”
But in any event, the statute as written is much broader than the facts of this case, and no limiting construction can limit it just to foreign governments, or just to very high level and sensitive information. If Rick’s theory of the statute is right, then political candidates would find it much harder to investigate what their opponents did in foreign countries, or did to foreigners here in the U.S. And that suggests to me that this theory can’t be right.
originally posted by: Dudemo5
originally posted by: ChrisM101
Solicitation Requires a REQUEST for something of Value, youre arguement that agreeing to meet for information in this case, does not meet the requirements of a request.
Under Commission regulations it is unlawful to knowingly provide substantial assistance to foreign nationals making contributions or donations in connection with any U.S. election. 11 CFR 110.20(h). "Substantial assistance" refers to active involvement in the solicitation, making, receipt or acceptance of a foreign national contribution or donation with the intent of facilitating the successful completion of the transaction. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to individuals who act as conduits or intermediaries. 67 FR 69945-6 (November 19, 2002) [PDF].
So, when Don Jr. agreed to show up at the meeting so the Russians could give him damaging information on Hillary, he was in fact breaking the law.
As far as solicitation goes, he was offered information that was clearly a breech of federal election law and responded such that it was clear he intended to show up at the meeting so the transaction was completed, in essence confirming that his desire was for them to hand it over. Do I need to dig up the specific language?
Sorry, its not fantasy land, its legal land, and that doesnt hold water.
I'm afraid it does.
Show me where this information had any hint of value? was it ever used?
How could I show it was ever used if we don't even know for sure if anything was actually exchanged? What I do know is that, at the very least, the information counts as opposition research, even if one ignores all possible legal issues. And opposition research has a non-zero monetary value.
Just because they weren't paid employees, and also Not volunteers, does not mean that they did any work for any one or the campaign.
They were foreign nationals offering something of value, in violation of U.S. election law. They did not qualify for the "volunteer" exception because they were not volunteers. That is the beginning an end of that point.
But what we did have was FUSION GPS working with a ex MI6 agent to provide fake details of Trump Pissing on a hotel bed in Russia That Obama slept in, and supposedly enjoying two prostitutes... All fake of course.
Please don't mistake me for someone who cares whether they throw Hillary in jail for life. Because I don't. But Fusion GPS was a company based in Washington D.C. who had not disclosed their connections to Russia. Not quite the same thing.