Trump Thread

[Gilrandir]

Brushed aside? This is Total War you're talking about. Considerations only generally came on a reciprocal basis, else the victims were lucky to get anything.

So the consideration was reciprocity, not human shields. If it comes to North Korea bombing others, human shields will be forgotten. Hence there is no use of talking about human shields.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So the consideration was reciprocity, not human shields. If it comes to North Korea bombing others, human shields will be forgotten. Hence there is no use of talking about human shields.

The logic of 'total war' does not admit of the existence of "human shields." There are only targets of varying strategic and tactical value.

[Greyblades]

The logic of 'total war' does not admit of the existence of "human shields."

You've obviously never used ashigaru correctly.

Get gud scrub

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You've obviously never used ashigaru correctly.

Get gud scrub

Not human shields. Simply expendable tactical assets.

[Kralizec]

http://www.gocomics.com/nickanderson/2017/07/05

[Montmorency]

Donald Trump Jr. posts documents pertaining to interactions with Russian-government agents.



But really

[Husar]

Donald Trump Jr. posts documents pertaining to interactions with Russian-government agents.



But really

So his defense is he tried to collude but failed?

[HopAlongBunny]

Donald Trump Jr. posts documents pertaining to interactions with Russian-government agents.



But really

I am surprised how long it took for the "But Hillary!..." line to appear :)

[drone]

So his defense is he tried to collude but failed?

Basically. Apparently the whole family is dumber than a sack of hammers.

[Greyblades]

Actually the defense is: it's not illegal to seek out evidence of a presidential candidate's illegal action.

It's cant even be counted as collusion because Jr wasnt working for the campaign nor is he in official office.

Edit: only laws I could find (on a 5 minute google search) that illegalises forms of collusion is surrounding actual crimes like fixing elections, illegal campaign contributions and public corruption.

None of these is what Trump Jr did or would have committed if the source was legit.

[Montmorency]

Actually the defense is: it's not illegal to seek out evidence of a presidential candidate's illegal action.

It's cant even be counted as collusion because Jr wasnt working for the campaign nor is he in official office.

1. Yes it is, when the transfer of information is managed by a foreign national, certainly when it is an agent of a foreign government.
2. Donald Trump Jr. worked with and on his father's campaign, as did Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner.

[Husar]

Actually the defense is: it's not illegal to seek out evidence of a presidential candidate's illegal action.

It's cant even be counted as collusion because Jr wasnt working for the campaign nor is he in official office.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93740

Hard to see how there is not a serious case here of solicitation. Trump Jr. appears to have knowledge of the foreign source and is asking to see it. As I explained earlier, such information can be considered a “thing of value” for purposes of the campaign finance law. (Update: More on the meaning of “thing of value” here and here.)

It is also possible other laws were broken, such as the laws against coordinating with a foreign entity on an expenditure. There could also be related obstruction, racketeering, or conspiracy charges, but these are really outside my area of specialization and I cannot say.

Who to believe? A law professor or Greyblades?

Tough decision, I guess it's undecided.

[Kralizec]

Actually the defense is: it's not illegal to seek out evidence of a presidential candidate's illegal action.

It's cant even be counted as collusion because Jr wasnt working for the campaign nor is he in official office.

The last part of your post might disculpate Trump himself, if he can argue that he wasn't in on the loop on what his son was doing. Without accidentily blurting out something self-incriminating, which wouldn't surprise me.

Beyond that: of course I don't know the relevant criminal statutes, but if what he did is not outright illegal I would be highly suprised. The email exchange establishes that:

- Rob Goldstone tried to set up a meeting between little Donald and a Russian government lawyer (that's the wording of the email)
- for the purpose of sharing incriminating information about Hillary Clinton (also explicitly stated in the exchange)
- for the benefit of his father's campaign (again, it says so literally in the exchange)
- little Donald acted so excited that I can only assume the exchange gave him a boner

As for the first part...he has defended himself by claiming this isn't any different from the opposition research that all politicians do on their opponents, a claim that has since then been contradicted by former campaign bosses from both the Democratic and Republican party. The general gist being: if somebody with ties to a foreign government offers to help you in a national election, you stay the hell away from it and in fact should call the FBI.

[Greyblades]

1. Yes it is, when the transfer of information is managed by a foreign national, certainly when it is an agent of a foreign government.
2. Donald Trump Jr. worked with and on his father's campaign, as did Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner.

1. No it isnt; "A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election." Reading this in context with the rest of the law which at no point refers to information it can safely be said that the law only bans exchanges of monetary value in any form, which this in no way was.

As an aside I would advise against using vox as a source of news, their track record is as reliable as brietbart.

2. I meant in terms of official capacity. Admittedly I cannot find any information either way on this issue; was he employed by the campaign or did he just tag along? The latter divests the president of responsibility for Jr's actions but the search engines are clogged with stories about this so I cannot find any definitive proof either way.

As for Jared Kushner and Paul Manfort, perhaps, can you determine they were there on Sr's knowledge or working independantly?

[Montmorency]

Reading this in context with the rest of the law which at no point refers to information it can safely be said that the law only bans exchanges of monetary value in any form, which this in no way was.

The clause "any other thing of value", which you bolded, is designed exactly to cover non-pecuniary items. If only raw funds were covered by law in these types of scenarios, we would be nearly powerless against organized crime.

I meant in terms of official capacity. Admittedly I cannot find any information either way on this issue; was he employed by the campaign or did he just tag along? The latter divests the president of responsibility for Jr's actions but the search engines are clogged with stories about this so I cannot find any definitive proof either way.

He actively advised his father during the campaign, strategized with other members of the campaign, spoke on the campaign with authority to news media and the public, and gave a speech supporting his father at the RNC.

As an aside I would advise against using vox as a source of news, their track record is as reliable as brietbart.

How's that?

As for Jared Kushner and Paul Manfort, perhaps, can you determine they were there on Sr's knowledge or working independantly?

That's the question. I'm sure, in the end, it's possible that President Trump has been the sock puppet for basically everyone around him.

[Kralizec]

Suppose that it goes to trial, and that little Donald gets convicted. What would be the reaction of the American public if President Trump pardons him?

It's obvious what the reaction of Democratic leaning people would be. The reaction of the Republican part seems less obvious nowadays.

[Greyblades]

Who to believe? A law professor or Greyblades?

Tough decision, I guess it's undecided.

His argument is predicated on the definition of contribution being able to contain information. The problem here is that the law does not define contribution nor refer to an outside definition.

However the law says Solicit a contribution. This is important because the definition of Solicit as defined by 11 CFR 300.2 is such:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(m)To solicit. For the purposes of part 300, to solicit means to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. 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. A solicitation may be made directly or indirectly. The context includes the conduct of persons involved in the communication. A solicitation does not include mere statements of political support or mere guidance as to the applicability of a particular law or regulation.

(1) The following types of communications constitute solicitations:

(i) A communication that provides a method of making a contribution or donation, regardless of the communication. This includes, but is not limited to, providing a separate card, envelope, or reply device that contains an address to which funds may be sent and allows contributors or donors to indicate the dollar amount of their contribution or donation to the candidate, political committee, or other organization.

(ii) A communication that provides instructions on how or where to send contributions or donations, including providing a phone number specifically dedicated to facilitating the making of contributions or donations. However, a communication does not, in and of itself, satisfy the definition of “to solicit” merely because it includes a mailing address or phone number that is not specifically dedicated to facilitating the making of contributions or donations.

(iii) A communication that identifies a Web address where the Web page displayed is specifically dedicated to facilitating the making of a contribution or donation, or automatically redirects the Internet user to such a page, or exclusively displays a link to such a page. However, a communication does not, in and of itself, satisfy the definition of “to solicit” merely because it includes the address of a Web page that is not specifically dedicated to facilitating the making of a contribution or donation.

The focus in this one being on money as well as the language in the law in my last post contributes to the impression that contribution must reffering to something of monetary value to make sense.

This impression is further entrenched by Wex's legal dictionary that defines contribution as:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In business and partnership law, contribution may refer to a capital contribution, which is an amount of money or assets given to a business or partnership by one of the owners or partners. The capital contribution increases the owner or partner's equity interest in the entity. Capital contributions are not considered business income unless given in the form of a loan.

Contribution may also refer to a charitable contribution, which is an amount of money or assets given to a corporation organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes. Charitable contributions are tax deductible for up to one half of an individual's adjusted gross income, and up to ten percent of a corporation's taxable income.

With this I can conclude with extreme confidence that contribution refers to a money transfer, and with the law banning "a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value" I can easily say that, no this does not in any way include the transfer of information.

Next time dont base your entire argument on an appeal to authority here; the american legal system like many is filled with partisan hacks who will say anything for money or political gain and they cannot be trusted just on position.

[Montmorency]

With this I can conclude with extreme confidence that contribution refers to a money transfer, and with the law banning "a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value" I can easily say that, no this does not in any way include the transfer of information.

It is so bizarre that you insist on not taking into account the plain meaning of the words which you quote, which address a subset of contribution that is distinguished from "money".

[Greyblades]

This is US law, there is no "plain meaning". Donation of money means money with no strings attached, contribution expects interest.

Case in point on no plain meaning: Thing of value.

Property, not info.

[Montmorency]

This is US law, there is no "plain meaning".

Case in point: Thing of value.

Property, not info.

n. any other thing of value that is pecuniary or compensatory in value to a person, or the primary significance of which is economic gain.

"Any" means any. This is straightforward. The language "any" is used to cover as many cases as possible.

If they (who framed the law) meant property or money solely, they would say "property or money solely".

"Plain meaning" is a fundamental standard for interpreting law. Not what you want the law to do, but what the text of the law actually says.

[Greyblades]

"Any" means any. This is straightforward. The language "any" is used to cover as many cases as possible.

If they meant property or money solely, they would say "property or money solely".

"Plain meaning" is a fundamental standard for interpreting law. Not what you want the law to do, but what the text of the law actually says.

I addressed the plain meaning issue of your previous post in my edit. And they largely did say "property or money soley":

any other thing of value that is pecuniary or compensatory in value to a person, or the primary significance of which is economic gain.

"Pecuniary": relating to or consisting of money. Doesnt apply.

"primary significance of which is economic gain." Highly difficult to make stick as you have to determine Jr's greater motivation for wanting it is money over say political or personal reasons.

"Compensatory": (of a payment) intended to recompense someone who has experienced loss, suffering, or injury.
Or.
Reducing or offsetting the unpleasant or unwelcome effects of something.

This is only definition in that which could apply to information and both versions requires a loss this would be compensating, which doesnt really apply to Jr.

[Greyblades]

I dont know whether you will get this if I edit it in, at the rate of reply I would say not, so I am risking a double post.

"Any" means any. This is straightforward. The language "any" is used to cover as many cases as possible.

If they (who framed the law) meant property or money solely, they would say "property or money solely".

"Plain meaning" is a fundamental standard for interpreting law. Not what you want the law to do, but what the text of the law actually says.

While you bring up the plain meaning rule, or the literal rule as it is know in Britain, I note that there is another rule that can be applied here: the mischeif rule.

This rule when applied expects the court to take in consideration what act the law intended to prevent when interpreting. Based on the title and content of the Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals the intent is rather clear: prevent foriegn nationals from giving US politicians and lawmakers items of value, be they currency or property, in an attempt to prevent corruption. Not prevent foreign nationals from giving US law makers information.

The letter of the law strongly supports this and the spirit of the law is outright states it: this cannot be applied to information such as Trump Jr was offered.

[Montmorency]

The letter of the law strongly supports this and the spirit of the law is outright states it: this cannot be applied to information such as Trump Jr was offered.

What is not omitted, is admitted. The law does not specifically omit "information", so it will be considered under the literal meaning of "thing of value".

That's the entirety of the matter.

Here's a treatment from 2010:

Anything of Value. The term anything of value is not defined in the FECA-BRCA or the regulations. It should be construed according to its common meaning and consistent with the purpose of the FECA-BRCA.

Is the intent of the law to avert or mitigate foreign interference with election campaigns? Yes.

Is receiving opposition research from a foreign national associated with their government an example of foreign interference with a election campaign? Yes.

Is information pursuant to a campaign literally a "thing of value" to the opposing campaign? Yes.

[Strike For The South]

Like anything in life

It's fact specific.

[Husar]

it can safely be said that the law only bans exchanges of monetary value in any form

His argument is predicated on the definition of contribution being able to contain information. The problem here is that the law does not define contribution nor refer to an outside definition.

Well, it's only two US experts on US law against some British wise guy who has the superior interpretation of the US law of course: https://www.justsecurity.org/42956/o...nation-russia/

The President stated publicly that he would like to have the Russians locate the stolen emails. Mr. Smith, indicating in various ways association with General Flynn, launches an initiative focused on finding these communications. A Russian national with government connections is able to schedule a meeting with the most senior circle of the campaign by pledging that she had negative information about Mrs. Clinton. In various ways, public and private, the campaign is making its interest clear, and, at a minimum, it is “assenting” to Russian plans to unearth information that constitutes a clear “thing of value” from a foreign source to influence an election.

http://www.businessinsider.de/donald...17-7?r=US&IR=T

Brendan Fischer, Federal Election Commission reform program director at the Campaign Legal Center, told Business Insider that the FEC has in past opinions interpreted the definition of "other thing of value" to include non-monetary contributions in relation to the foreign national ban.

"So getting opposition research or dirt on Hillary Clinton, or however they tried to portray it, would constitute a contribution both on the definition of a contribution and on the foreign national contribution ban," he said. "And then solicitation: Did Trump Jr. solicit the contribution? I think there the answer is also yes."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...t-to-know.html

Foreign nationals are prohibited from providing "anything of value" to campaigns, and that same law also bars solicitation of such assistance. The law typically applies to monetary campaign contributions, but courts could consider information such as opposition research to be something of value.

Bradley A. Smith, a former Bill Clinton-appointed Republican Federal Election Commission member, said that based on what's known about the meeting, Trump Jr.'s actions are unlikely to be considered illegal solicitation.

"It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer," Smith said.

But Larry Noble, a former general counsel at the FEC, said the situation "raises all sorts of red flags."

There, even FoxNews aren't sure whether they can jump onto your bandwagon.
I guess it all depends on the FEC now or whoever is meant to decide about it.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/nationa...a383baa1d.html

This one has a few opinions from legal experts, some of whom agree with you and some of whom don't. It's probably not as clear cut as you make it out to be either way.

[Montmorency]

"It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer," Smith said.

Crucially, this email chain has a past and a future. How did it come to Rob Goldstone finding this Russian woman, how did he come into contact with her, how did he learn that she was affiliated with the Russian government, what was Rob Goldstone's relationship to Trump Jr, and the campaign in general... Basically, how did it come to this chain and this proposed meeting. The future, what did Manafort and Kushner have to say, what happened at the meeting, then afterward between the aforementioned individuals, largely reprising the questions. Normally this context is where the suspect would look or point to for relief.

But it's hard to imagine what information could put the situation in a better light, since what is revealed hints that certain notions about Russian activity may have already been accepted as a matter of course by highest levels of the campaign, and is already far beyond mere political shop talk. What do you expect a certain someone may or may not have to offer, and why do you expect it?

E.g. "Mr. Trump Jr. I recommend you meet this Russian woman, she has some good ideas on campaign strategies and avenues of attack on Clinton" vs. "Mr. Trump Jr. I recommend you meet this Russian woman peddling an intelligence package on Clinton with the alleged approval of the Putin regime.' Followed by recognition of the proposal and enthusiastic engagement.There are several analogies here, including corrupt money: advice on how to make money against direct discussion of pecuniary blandishments; and murder: talking about wanting to kill someone against taking premeditated action with the end of killing someone.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I dont know whether you will get this if I edit it in, at the rate of reply I would say not, so I am risking a double post.



While you bring up the plain meaning rule, or the literal rule as it is know in Britain, I note that there is another rule that can be applied here: the mischeif rule.

This rule when applied expects the court to take in consideration what act the law intended to prevent when interpreting. Based on the title and content of the Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals the intent is rather clear: prevent foriegn nationals from giving US politicians and lawmakers items of value, be they currency or property, in an attempt to prevent corruption. Not prevent foreign nationals from giving US law makers information.

The letter of the law strongly supports this and the spirit of the law is outright states it: this cannot be applied to information such as Trump Jr was offered.

Trump Jr went there because the info would directly save them expenses related to opposition research which is labor intensive.

There is a direct monetary benefit to receiving the info, even if you want to claim the info itself is not money.

[Sarmatian]

What is not omitted, is admitted. The law does not specifically omit "information", so it will be considered under the literal meaning of "thing of value".

Is the intent of the law to avert or mitigate foreign interference with election campaigns? Yes.

Is receiving opposition research from a foreign national associated with their government an example of foreign interference with a election campaign? Yes.

Is information pursuant to a campaign literally a "thing of value" to the opposing campaign? Yes.

It is not really that simple. Any foreign news organization would be guilty of breaking that law if they publish something negative about a candidate, because it could help the other candidate. And lot of news organizations receive money from their government in some way, shape or form.

Under your interpretation, that law was broken thousands of times during this campaign. Anyone foreign who published anything bad about Trump could be prosecuted.

[Montmorency]

It is not really that simple. Any foreign news organization would be guilty of breaking that law if they publish something negative about a candidate, because it could help the other candidate. And lot of news organizations receive money from their government in some way, shape or form.

Under your interpretation, that law was broken thousands of times during this campaign. Anyone foreign who published anything bad about Trump could be prosecuted.

Foreign news coverage is not normally something a campaign can control. It is not something to be accepted or rejected between principals. In itself it cannot be exchanged as a thing of value, and it is publicly available, and static once promulgated. Conspiracy to fix positive coverage between a campaign and foreign media, maybe it is covered by other election law, but under this one you would probably need adjacent factors.

The mere existence of coverage is clearly not prosecutable under this regulation.

[Strike For The South]

At some point I fully expect Trump to call a press conference, lean into the mic, and scream "THE ARISTOCRATS".