An in depth look, did either campaign break contribution by foriegn nationals law

First off, I would like to think user 1947boomer for making me look in to this further. Even though we may disagree where this ends up, he (or she) really made me think about this.

I have long sense been of the opinion that if don jr. trying but failing to get dirt on hillary from russians was illegal, then the dnc and hillary paying a law firm to hire a foreign ex spy to get on trump from russians was also illegal.

To begin with, regardless of the legality, the ethics and practical effect remain the same; it would either be ok or scummy either way; so no one should be able to claim a moral high ground.

but the law matters, and so despite the ethics of it, the legality is whats important as far as the effect on the campaigns at this point.

despite the fact that it seems obvious that if getting dirt from a foreign national is a crime, then paying a third party to commit that crime for you would not make it ok, it still, is worth looking at the law.

So here it is.

§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(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.

uscode.house.gov...(title:52%20section:30121%20edition:prelim)

(section b defines foreign national, but there seems to be no real point of contention there)

So here is the first important part.

"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"

So if political dirt is a "thing of value" then the law would have been broken.

But this leads to the first area of discussion; is information enough to constitute a thing of value?

I think a lot of people would say yes. But think of the implications of that.

How much or how useful does that info have to be before its illegal for a foreigner to give to you?

If a foreigner tells you your campaign will run much smoother if you switch to linux and you do, is that a thing of value?

What if they give you tips on how to give a good speech that they have never told anyone else?

Maybe you think it only applies to dirt for some reason. Well what is the threshold for dirt?

Is it telling you your opponent committed a crime? Or would telling you they saw you yell at a busboy qualify?

The problem is that the concept of a thing of value is so vague, that it seems that pretty much any campaign that has ever dealt with a foreign national has broke this law.

So that is the first problem.

But lets for the sake of argument and put that aside, and say yes, getting dirt from a foreign national is a thing of value, thus don jr. broke the law.

The argument as to why hillary didnt break the law would be she did not directly get dirt from a foreign national, but paid an American firm to do it.

However, this will not matter according to the law.

Look at this section.

"(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, "

So thats pretty cut and dry. You cant get dirt directly from a foreign national, and you cant indirectly get it from a third party.

So this means without a question hillary and the dnc are guilty as well.

Now this has been my stance for some time.

However, I was informed that this law was amended in 2002, and now it was acceptable to pay a us contractor to get dirt for you.

I have found the amendment, and I do not believe that is the case.

Here is the amendment.

Amendments

2002-Pub. L. 107–155, §303(1), substituted "Contributions and donations by foreign nationals" for "Contributions by foreign nationals" in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–155, §303(2), added subsec. (a) and struck out former subsec. (a) which read as follows: "It shall be unlawful for a foreign national directly or through any other person to make any contribution of money or other thing of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution, in connection with an election to any political office or in connection with any primary election, convention, or caucus held to select candidates for any political office; or for any person to solicit, accept, or receive any such contribution from a foreign national."

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 107–155, §317, inserted "or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8)" after "United States".

uscode.house.gov...(title:52%20section:30121%20edition:prelim)

Now this is confusing the way it is written, but stay with me.

What this is saying is the law after amended is actually the law I posted.

This means the original law I posted up to is in fact the post 2002, amended version.

What you are reading in this amended section is showing what changes were made, and what the law read like before the amendment.

So what this means in conclusion.

It is vague as to rather or not getting dirt from a foreign national on your opponent is considered a thing of value and therefore a campaign contribution.

However, if it is, both trump and the dnc and hillary broke the law because both direct AND INDIRECT contributions are in fact illegal, meaning hiring a third party to get the contribution would not make it legal.

a reply to: Grambler

Considering they knowing used the dossier for evidence for the probe, I doubt there will be any more investigations.

a reply to: Grambler

The words used in laws are irrelevant. How the words are interpreted is determine by how much money is spent. Money equals justice. If laws were really important almost 99% of all politicians who have appeared on TV over the last 20 years would now be serving jail time. But politicians are above the law in this country.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Grambler

The words used in laws are irrelevant. How the words are interpreted is determine by how much money is spent. Money equals justice. If laws were really important almost 99% of all politicians who have appeared on TV over the last 20 years would now be serving jail time. But politicians are above the law in this country.

Almost all.

Just not trump and his team.

Weird isnt it?

Almost like chuck schumer said, you go after the intel community, and they will get you.

So Bill Clinton pays off numerous lovers and sexual assault victims while Hillary roasted every one of them...and this is the sword they're ultimately gonna fall on... Seems legit... It's goning to explode in their face like everything else. If Democrats are good at something it's f*ng up a Wet Dream.

a reply to: Grambler

a reply to: Grambler

Since NSA has been outsourced Booz Allen Hamilton a for-profit corporation what difference does it make if US intel goes to the highest bidder. Nationalism only goes so far. It stops at the word corporation.

"At Booz Allen, a Vast U.S. Spy Operation, Run for Private Profit"

"WASHINGTON — In the six weeks since federal agents raided a suburban Maryland home and arrested Harold T. Martin III on suspicion of stealing classified information from the National Security Agency, another organization has quietly prepared to face the fallout: Booz Allen Hamilton, Mr. Martin’s employer.

Booz Allen, a consulting firm that earns billions of dollars by working for American intelligence agencies, has been called the world’s most profitable spy organization. News this week of Mr. Martin’s arrest in August could renew scrutiny of the firm’s operations and, more broadly, the lucrative contracting business that American intelligence now relies on to run its vast, global surveillance operations."

www.nytimes.com...

Washington and the government is a giant scam run by organized crime. I don't think laws really matter anymore especially election laws. Corporations ARE the government.

originally posted by: SecretsoftheBlueApples
So Bill Clinton pays off numerous lovers and sexual assault victims while Hillary roasted every one of them...and this is the sword they're ultimately gonna fall on... Seems legit... It's goning to explode in their face like everything else. If Democrats are good at something it's f*ng up a Wet Dream.

Republicans are just as bad as Democrats. If you think otherwise you are delusional.

(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;

Democratic National convention.

'Or anything of value' in connection with a Federal Election.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Democratic Party has selected a handful of undocumented immigrants for official roles at next week’s Democratic National Convention, in a bid to highlight the gaping policy divide on immigration between White House hopeful Hillary Clinton and Republican rival Donald Trump.

www.reuters.com...

a reply to: neo96

Interesting.

Sometimes I feel like I am just talking to a wall with threads like these.

The sad truth is that most people just want to cheer for their team.

And so with this issue, they dont care if the dnc and hillary broke the same wall they are screaming about trump possibly breaking. They dont care that it is obvious investigators are only concerned about trumps team breaking the same law the dnc did. They dont care that the media ic complicit in this.

There is no interest in viewing what the actual law says, or if other people broke it.

Get trump, BAMN.

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

DCC,DNC,CLinton, Perkins Coie,Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele,Orbis.

'Indirectly'.

a reply to: Grambler

And so with this issue, they dont care if the dnc and hillary broke the same wall they are screaming about trump possibly breaking

More than once.

originally posted by: neo96

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

DCC,DNC,CLinton, Perkins Coie,Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele,Orbis.

'Indirectly'.

Yes, that is the key.

So whats the punishment for violating this.

It seems the people opposed to trump want him kicked out of office.

I am fine with that, but seeing as how the dnc also broke this law, I guess that means they too should all be removed from office.

Or is it that only trump breaking the law matters?

a reply to: Grambler

So whats the punishment for violating this.

All things being EQUAL.

The same snip Trump has been put through for the last two years.

There's probably a difference between trying to find out if your opponent is being financed by a hostile foreign power on one hand and meeting with a hostile foreign power to get dirt on your opponent on the other. One could brand you as a patriot and the other makes you a traitor.