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

a reply to: Dudemo5

Here let's turn this around on you. Why are someone's baked goods not "something of value," why is someone's singing talent not "something of value," and why is someone's ability to solicit money not "something of value" but opposition research is something of value? Explain.

Bonus: what is the intrinsic value of said research?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Dudemo5

Here let's turn this around on you. Why are someone's baked goods not "something of value," why is someone's singing talent not "something of value," and why is someone's ability to solicit money not "something of value" but opposition research is something of value? Explain.

The key here revolves around the accepted definition of what constitutes a campaign volunteer, and what are typically considered to be volunteer activities.

The definition may be nebulous, but in the situation we are discussing there isn't even any pretense of volunteering. There is simply a direct offer of a good (not a service), in this case information.

a reply to: Dudemo5

So how do you square that with being allowed to provide goods for fund raising and for organizational purposes?

I would also press you to prove that information is a good and not a service.

a reply to: Dfairlite

KellyAnne Conway provided clarity this evening on Hannity (FoxNews).

""White House counselor Kellyanne Conway brought visual aids to her interview with Sean Hannity Wednesday night to help viewers understand her take on the Russia probe

Conway criticized the media's coverage of the Trump Jr. story saying reporters spoke "more about Russia than America."

She also called it "refreshing" that Trump Jr. admitted Tuesday he would have done things differently in how he handled the meeting and applauded his transparency. 

"How refreshing to have somebody take responsibility, be transparent, be earnest, admit maybe he would have done things differently," she said.

"The bottom line is, what came out of this 20 minute, brief meeting: nothing helpful, nothing meaningful, nothing consequential.""

Source:thehill.com...

This was about uncovering a crime though. Election laws cannot interfere with that.

A similar example, if you are a CFO and purposely destroy the business you work for, the investors will sue you.

But if you uncover wrongdoing, like Enron, then you are beyond reproach to expose the crimes.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Dudemo5

So how do you square that with being allowed to provide goods for fund raising and for organizational purposes?

The Exceptions you cited were Advisory Opinions issued by the FEC, which accepted requests (generally in writing, from what I understand) and responded accordingly, based upon whether the activities in question could be considered "volunteer work" (along with other considerations, such as compensation.)

Based on my reading of these opinions, it seems that the FEC, while not offering a succinct definition, holds an opinion of "volunteer activity" that is similar to my own.

Although, I have to be honest. If it were up to me (I know it's not) foreign officials wouldn't be contributing in any way to U.S. political campaigns. That's just my own personal opinion, and not really relevant accept as an aside.

It is hard to imagine any scenario in which the Trump Campaign could have submitted in writing a request for clarification to the FEC regarding this particular scenario and been told that receiving the information was acceptable. It does not even pretend to be volunteer work.

a reply to: Dudemo5

Sure it does. They could charge a fee for their opposition research, instead they're volunteering it free of charge.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Dudemo5

Sure it does. They could charge a fee for their opposition research, instead they're volunteering it free of charge.

I'm not sure how the FEC would react to a request to accept opposition research from a foreign national (I don't see any advisory opinions on that -- do you?), but based on the other opinions, I find it highly unlikely that such research would be accepted, given that the whole point of the law is to avoid foreign nationals having undue influence in the American electoral process.

This isn't some foriegn actor offering to "put on a show" to raise funds. This is information collected by a foreign government for the explicit purpose of submarining a specific U.S. Presidential candidate.

However, let's pretend the FEC *would* allow this. In this case, there is no "offer" of opposition research services. There is simply the offer of the finished good. The research has already been conducted, and what was discovered has intrinsic value to the Trump campaign, and now this "something of value" is being offered (and solicited in kind) by Trump Junior.

That may be a pedantic nitpick, but I think it's a legit take.

However, the real kicker is that the opposition research in general is likely a violation of the law. I mean, if it's not, it's hard to imagine why the law exists in the first place.

originally posted by: Dudemo5

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.

The legal definition of solicitation proves that Trump, Jr. did not solicit anything because he not request the meeting in the first place.

On the other hand McCain and the DNC solicited and paid a foreign national whose sources were openly stated to be Russian Intel services, Russian Govt officials and other Kremlin connected individuals to get compromising information against Trump. Then disseminated this Russian misinformation to the American public and the FBI with Comey using it as a roadmap to an investigation of Russian collusion with Trump and try to impeach a Democratically elected president. Who's colluding and undermining our country again.

a reply to: Dudemo5

However, the real kicker is that the opposition research in general is likely a violation of the law. I mean, if it's not, it's hard to imagine why the law exists in the first place.

By this standard the pissgate dossier also violated the same FEC rule.

but based on the other opinions, I find it highly unlikely that such research would be accepted

What other opinions gave you that impression?

the whole point of the law is to avoid foreign nationals having undue influence in the American electoral process.... the real kicker is that the opposition research in general is likely a violation of the law. I mean, if it's not, it's hard to imagine why the law exists in the first place.

Look up what "undue influence" is and explain to me how opposition research would qualify as such.

I'll leave you with a link to a Washington Post Opinion piece. Yeah, I know -- The Post, Fake News, all that. But you should read it in its entirety. Why? Because I think you'll actually appreciate a lot of it. It examines in detail everything you and I have been discussing here, and even addresses the "volunteer" arguments you've been making, and it certainly doesn't take my side on all of it.

One of the author's contentions is that the rule about "things of value" is overbroad and a violation of the 1st amendment. Of course, that wouldn't prevent someone being charged, but it could cause the law to be re-evaluated by a higher court if challenged.

There are a number of different viewpoints presented.

To me, it seems pretty obvious that there is enough here to warrant an FEC investigation.

One point made in the article was that the person providing the information cannot be considered a volunteer if she was being compensated by the Russian government -- that seems accurate to me.

But you read it and make up your own mind.

www.washingtonpost.com... utm_term=.2ec0c3bc1e53

a reply to: Dudemo5

The 1st amendment was actually my next argument lol. I'll check out your wapo piece. I judge fake news by it's content, not by it's author or publisher.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Just finished it, very good points and I agree with the author, the statute is over-broad. It would crush the first amendment and have terrible consequences for our elections and free information flow if it were enforced as written.

Either way, neither of us can know for sure how it would play out in court.

originally posted by: Dfairlite


Either way, neither of us can know for sure how it would play out in court.

Agreed.

"No substance or factual basis?" Do you live in reality or your own made-up delusional reality? You can't get anymore evidence and substance with recorded videos of your messiah lying and caught in conflicting statements. Now you have e-mails submitted by his son proving the collusion with Russia connections trying to influence the election! What part don't you get??? Trump supporters are ridiculous. You whine when your "fake news" presents evidence to the contrary and your own political party members condemn the stupid rhetoric coming out of the horses mouth. What's it going to take before the light bulb goes on?

You might as well live in a cave because you're ignoring the stupidity and scandalous behavior of your POTUS. Face the facts, TRUMP lacks CREDIBILITY! As for him staying in office, I'm sure it will suck for you and the rest of the zombie Trump supporters when impeachment proceedings start.

Keep assuring yourself there's no substance, evidence, it's all fake news, blah, blah, blah, ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Where there's smoke there's fire and Trump is burning down his own house.

a reply to: network dude

So any politician who has spoken with anyone from Russia for longer than 20 minutes (the new rule set by retards) is guilty of Russian collusion.

Keep twisting the facts. It's fully legal to meet with people from Russia but it's not legal to meet with them to try and get help with the election.

a reply to: carewemust
Shouldn't she be running damage control from the Bowling Green massacre?

a reply to: buster2010

Actually it is legal to meet with them for "help with the election". It would be illegal to meet with them in order to defraud the election system, or some other illegal thing, but to get opposition research wouldn't be illegal.