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.