Results 1 to 30 of 2899

Thread: Trump Thread

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    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.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  2. #2
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,408
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    "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.
    Last edited by Greyblades; 07-11-2017 at 23:48.
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  3. #3
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,408
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View 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.
    Last edited by Greyblades; 07-12-2017 at 00:09.
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  4. #4

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    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.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  5. #5
    Old Town Road Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,369

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    Like anything in life

    It's fact specific.
    There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

    Member thankful for this post:



  6. #6
    Horse Archer Senior Member Sarmatian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Novi Sad, Serbia
    Posts
    4,315

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Sarmatian; 07-12-2017 at 12:17.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
    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.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  8. #8
    Old Town Road Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,369

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    At some point I fully expect Trump to call a press conference, lean into the mic, and scream "THE ARISTOCRATS".
    There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  9. #9
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    At some point I fully expect Trump to call a press conference, lean into the mic, and scream "THE ARISTOCRATS".
    That was a humorous post, you're a high quality humanoid.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  10. #10
    Horse Archer Senior Member Sarmatian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Novi Sad, Serbia
    Posts
    4,315

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    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.
    What is not omitted is admitted (I do find that concept interesting, as it is the other way around in European law, and I presumed it was similar in common law). Your definition of "anything of value" is too broad legally. A pep talk, a morale boost could be "of value".

  11. #11
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    4,011

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    Trump, aka Gollum:
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

  12. #12

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    Probably it was never presented as coming from a foreign government. And they were primed to assume that there was international "dirt" to be had on Hillary Clinton via the Clinton Foundation.


    Of course, even if you DO accept that argument, it doesn't say much for their level of naivety or their competence does it?
    In the emails, Rob Goldstone, claimed the information was part of "Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

    Shockingly on the nose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
    What is not omitted is admitted (I do find that concept interesting, as it is the other way around in European law, and I presumed it was similar in common law). Your definition of "anything of value" is too broad legally. A pep talk, a morale boost could be "of value".
    Didn't we have threads here on the differences between common and Continental law?

    The definition is supposed to be broad. On the other hand, the existence of foreign people outside the US could in itself somehow be of benefit to a campaign. That doesn't make it prosecutable the way a discrete transfer of items would be. As I said, the difference between off-the-cuff moneymaking advice and actually transferring currency.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  13. #13

    Default Re: Trump Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    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.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO