Trump

[SHOXJOCK]

Misdirect misdirect. But no, campaigning on immigration reform that would potentially help illegals is not against the law. We can make all these tenuous ties if you want but they fall down under scrutiny. Here we have actual evidence. Also here is the full law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20 Notice it mentions:
"(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. 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."
"(g)Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals. No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section."
Is opposition research of value? Yes, else why are investigators and such hired by campaigns.

Look not a Trump fan did not vote for the A**hat. But reading your quote are you hanging your hat on "or other thing of value" because the rest is very weak IMO.

[Aargh]

Look not a Trump fan did not vote for the A**hat. But reading your quote are you hanging your hat on "or other thing of value" because the rest is very weak IMO.

there's also this part:

No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national...

By his own admission, Don, Jr. set up a meeting for that exact purpose. Now he's claiming that he didn't get what he was attempting to get.

If I go into my local Quik Trip with a gun in my pocket and I'm attempting to rob them, but they don't give me any money, am I innocent? Possibly. But, I sure look guilty as sin.

[ShockCrazy]

Look not a Trump fan did not vote for the A**hat. But reading your quote are you hanging your hat on "or other thing of value" because the rest is very weak IMO.

Only going that route because it's the most straightforward link, but there is a lot of debate. It's not just me, it's even lawyers. There is a lot of uncertainty. I'm not saying absolutely a crime, but it certainly is up for debate how a judge would rule. And just think about how we are actually debating whether or not a foreign government aiding or attempting to aid a United States presidential candidate and trying to work with his son in this specific circumstance is illegal, it's truly crazy. Tip of the iceberg I'm going to imagine and ultimately this specific issue will be rendered irrelevant. If not it will be an interesting case.

[SHOXJOCK]

there's also this part:


By his own admission, Don, Jr. set up a meeting for that exact purpose. Now he's claiming that he didn't get what he was attempting to get.

If I go into my local Quik Trip with a gun in my pocket and I'm attempting to rob them, but they don't give me any money, am I innocent? Possibly. But, I sure look guilty as sin.

Here is the the rest of the quote "any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section." Still don't see it's a contribution or a donation. If it was a contribution or a donation tell us what it was.

[Aargh]

Here is the the rest of the quote "any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section." Still don't see it's a contribution or a donation. If it was a contribution or a donation tell us what it was.

Here's paragraph (b) from the post you originally responded to. I thought you would have read it, but apprently you did not.

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. 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."

The term "a donation of money or other thing of value" seems pretty clear. Would information that could incarcerate an opponent be "of value" to a candidate running for office? Having a political opponent thrown in jail would supercede the need for campaign contributions of a strictly monetary-based "value". In a Presidential election, it would be "worth" a lot more than a check for $100 million.

[jdmee]

Here's paragraph (b) from the post you originally responded to. I thought you would have read it, but apprently you did not.



The term "a donation of money or other thing of value" seems pretty clear. Would information that could incarcerate an opponent be "of value" to a candidate running for office? Having a political opponent thrown in jail would supercede the need for campaign contributions of a strictly monetary-based "value". In a Presidential election, it would be "worth" a lot more than a check for $100 million.

Can you show a single case where the law has ever been closely interpreted in that way?

[jdmee]

Good analogy. But, it is legal to meet with a prostitute and talk to her/him. It only becomes illegal when you agree to perform and illegal act. Which illegal act did they agree to in this 20 minute meeting?

Depends.

Not a Crime.

Me: Hey, you're a prostitute? I have never met a prostitute, why did you decide to be come a prostitute?



Crime

Me: Hey, you're a prostitute? How much for your services? 100? That's too much, how about 50? No well sorry can't do it, bye.

[Aargh]

Can you show a single case where the law has ever been closely interpreted in that way?

I'm not a legal scholar with access to a law library, so the answer is no.

Can you show a single case where someone running for President has been offered and (at the very least) attempted to accept a political advantage from a foreign national? We might be on precedent-setting ground here.

To attempt to make the case that a political advantage has no "value" in a political campaign seems like the more difficult interpretation.

[Cdizzle]

I'm not a legal scholar with access to a law library, so the answer is no.

Can you show a single case where someone running for President has been offered and (at the very least) attempted to accept a political advantage from a foreign national? We might be on precedent-setting ground here.

To attempt to make the case that a political advantage has no "value" in a political campaign seems like the more difficult interpretation.

Not unprecedented. Doesn't mean it's good. Looking back for past occurrences is a rabbit hole, but not an un-interesting one.

http://time.com/4604464/foreign-interference-history/

http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2736&context=llr

[shocka khan]

Can you show a single case where the law has ever been closely interpreted in that way?

Who died and made you a lawyer? Or even a judge. Or even your qualifications which permit you to interpret the law in this manner?

Safe to say that no one has ever crossed this ethical threshold before.

Hubert Humphrey was offered help by the Russians when he ran against Nixon. Back on those days, politicians were more honest, so he turned the offer down.

And still most politicians are more honest than Donald John Trump and his family.

[SHOXJOCK]

Only going that route because it's the most straightforward link, but there is a lot of debate. It's not just me, it's even lawyers. There is a lot of uncertainty. I'm not saying absolutely a crime, but it certainly is up for debate how a judge would rule. And just think about how we are actually debating whether or not a foreign government aiding or attempting to aid a United States presidential candidate and trying to work with his son in this specific circumstance is illegal, it's truly crazy. Tip of the iceberg I'm going to imagine and ultimately this specific issue will be rendered irrelevant. If not it will be an interesting case.

Lets say it was found illegal what Don Jr did. Unless he comes out saying my Dad told me to take the meeting and get the information. Nothing happens to Trump. And thank you for answering my question unlike @seskridge

[ShockCrazy]

Lets say it was found illegal what Don Jr did. Unless he comes out saying my Dad told me to take the meeting and get the information. Nothing happens to Trump. And thank you for answering my question unlike @seskridge

Certainly there is a chance of trying to deny, but it is a fact he was in the same building as the time the meeting happened. I find it unlikely that he didn't know then and he certainly knew sometime after. Regardless as I said before I think this is the tip of the iceberg and this specific case will just be a piece of the whole picture. This is the first time we've seen real proof of fire within his campaign, until it was all smoke and denial of ANY connections, we now have certain evidence that at least Don Jr, Manafort, and Kushner lied publicly and that the did at least intend to meet with a Russian national who they thought was a government representative on issues of the campaign.

[jdshock]

Depends.

Not a Crime.

Me: Hey, you're a prostitute? I have never met a prostitute, why did you decide to be come a prostitute?



Crime

Me: Hey, you're a prostitute? How much for your services? 100? That's too much, how about 50? No well sorry can't do it, bye.

Legality is far from an open and shut case, for either side.

The question every Trump supporter/defender needs to be asking themselves is whether they can support someone who actively sought out information they believed to be harmful to their opponent and coming from a foreign government. At this point, arguing about the legality of it is just going to result in spinning wheels. The more important question is about whether you can still defend Trump and his staff. Assuming you can't defend Jr's actions, you have to hope Trump starts trying to distance himself from Jr, Kushner, and Manafort as quickly as possible.

[shocka khan]

Certainly there is a chance of trying to deny, but it is a fact he was in the same building as the time the meeting happened. I find it unlikely that he didn't know then and he certainly knew sometime after. Regardless as I said before I think this is the tip of the iceberg and this specific case will just be a piece of the whole picture. This is the first time we've seen real proof of fire within his campaign, until it was all smoke and denial of ANY connections, we now have certain evidence that at least Don Jr, Manafort, and Kushner lied publicly and that the did at least intend to meet with a Russian national who they thought was a government representative on issues of the campaign.

And this was my contention all along. Mamafort was up to his eyeballs in this.

Also don't rule out conspiracy and obstruction charges could also get thrown Trump's way.

I think the reason he's been so quiet about this is this is the advice given to him by his legal counsel.

[shocka khan]

Legality is far from an open and shut case, for either side.

The question every Trump supporter/defender needs to be asking themselves is whether they can support someone who actively sought out information they believed to be harmful to their opponent and coming from a foreign government. At this point, arguing about the legality of it is just going to result in spinning wheels. The more important question is about whether you can still defend Trump and his staff. Assuming you can't defend Jr's actions, you have to hope Trump starts trying to distance himself from Jr, Kushner, and Manafort as quickly as possible.

I don't know what you do in real life, but if I were guessing, I'd say you have tried criminal cases, based on your answer.

For all I know ijdmee could be like a staffer at Sullo&Sullo. For those of you who don't know about this firm, they specialize in defending people who have traffic tickets.

At least that's what I get when I read jdmee's comments. You seem to understand and also appreciate a jury and a prosecutor might see things differently.