|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Non
Joined: 22 May 2013
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510) wrote: |
(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.
|
Are the elements in place for Don Jr. to have committed a federal crime?
(b) A foreign national promised a "thing of value" (damaging info on HRC) to Don. (Or is it significant that "thing of value" is left out of the "expressly or impliedly promise" clause?)
(g) Don knew the attorney was a Russian national--the email chain he posted mentions that she was a "Russian government attorney." So "knowingly" seems to be met.
The meeting was reportedly a dud and he "received" nothing of value, and so "accepted" nothing of value, though he attended the meeting hoping, expecting and intending to receive something of value. The emails make that clear.
Did he "solicit" a "thing of value?" What does that mean?
| § 300.2 Definitions. wrote: |
| (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. |
Although the whole thing seems to have fallen into Don's lap, by replying to Rob Goldstone in the affirmative, he was asking/requesting/recommending, if not for a foreign national to provide a thing of value, then for a meeting to explore that option.
How much wiggle room does he have here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Even if his father gets impeached, it's very likely that Don Jr. - if ever convicted - would be pardoned by whatever Republican becomes the next (more-or-less illegitimate...) President. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The meeting was reportedly a dud and he "received" nothing of value, and so "accepted" nothing of value, though he attended the meeting hoping, expecting and intending to receive something of value. The emails make that clear. |
The DNC emails had some value. Especially since Assange dropped them strategically, such as right after the Access Hollywood tapes.
Combine this with Trump's dismissal of Comey.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/11/donald-trump-jr-emails-smoking-gun-robert-mueller-240414
| Quote: |
The smoking gun, according to the attorneys, is the wording throughout the emails that Trump Jr. exchanges with a broker for one of his father’s former Russian business partners. At one point, Trump Jr. responds “love it” at the prospect of material that would “incriminate” Clinton. In addition, the source of the material says the offer of the material is “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
“Extremely damaging,” said former Justice Department prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg. “Certainly shows an intent to collude with Russian government.” |
On a more humorous note:
http://cdn-users2.imagechef.com/sketchpadmeme/170712/meme91efea6f97ed355c.jpg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have read several articles on this issue this morning, and what I've noticed is that the expert commentary is not only generally vague to the point of meaninglessness, sounding very harsh while not actually outlining any real criminality, but it also seems fairly homogeneous in character, implying "expert shopping." I also noticed that at least some media commentators and politicians are issuing implicit accusations of treason, which is hysterical; when politicians and media actors engage in hysterics, are they usually defending a sound case, or trying to convince the public of an unsound one? Were I Mr. Trump, I don't think I'd be feeling especially worried right now, unless there are a few much worse skeletons in his closet, which is something I am not positioned to know.
That aside, trying to define the receipt of hypothetical true information as "something of value" in order to open it to regulation through campaign finance law is perverse -- a direct assault on the First Amendment. It is not quite as bad as, "Truth is treason if the truth comes from Russia," of course, but still by no means charming. To be frank, if the Russian government actually did have damning information regarding Mrs. Clinton's interactions with it, I would be entirely comfortable with them sharing that information; their motives may not strictly align with United States interests, but the electorate still benefits from being informed, and a more informed electorate is strengthened, not undermined. No action which reduces to sharing true information can be meaningfully described as "undermining our democracy." In fact, there's a certain irony in watching a group of people who are systematically attempting to undermine a sitting, elected President bemoan anything "undermining our democracy." I'm not saying they don't have the right to do that, but there's a certain element of hypocrisy involved. Doubly so given the parties in question not uncommonly rely upon people who are themselves violating the law as sources. Watching a group of people who have no respect for laws regarding the disclosure of government information trying to leverage campaign finance law in order to accuse someone who was willing to accept information of something between criminality and treason is more than a little absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| To be frank, if the Russian government actually did have damning information regarding Mrs. Clinton's interactions with it, I would be entirely comfortable with them sharing that information; their motives may not strictly align with United States interests, but the electorate still benefits from being informed, and a more informed electorate is strengthened, not undermined. No action which reduces to sharing true information can be meaningfully described as "undermining our democracy." |
This is substantially too deferential, at least after Trump fired a sitting FBI Director after attempting to influence his investigation into Russia (and Trump admitted so to Lester Hold).
| Donald Trump wrote: |
| As I have stated many times, a thorough investigation will confirm what we already know—there was no collusion between my campaign and any foreign entity . . . I look forward to this matter concluding quickly. In the meantime, I will never stop fighting for the people and the issues that matter most to the future of our country. |
It appears as if there was collusion between the Trump campaign and a foreign entity on its face. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
It appears as if there was collusion between the Trump campaign and a foreign entity on its face. |
More precisely, it appears that his campaign at the very least would have been willing to collude, which is believable enough. Elevating that premise to "there was collusion" would require both parties explanation of what happened during that meeting to be false, which is certainly possible, but would require additional evidence. And further elevating it to "there was morally problematic collusion" would require even more (though I don't think our news media would concern itself with that, given it treats Russia as implicitly evil). We'll have time to see if anything occurs.
Regarding Mr. Comey, many of the same people taking issue with his firing expressed concerns about his job performance, so it's extremely hard to take that seriously. His hearing came and went, he was provided his platform, and not much came of it. The President has the right to dismiss the Director of the FBI, the investigation into "Russia Stealing The Election And Undermining Democracy" continues, and it's not clear to me what, if anything, has been obstructed. And as far as what Mr. Trump said to Lester Holt, he said this:
| Quote: |
Trump told NBC's Lester Holt: "And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said 'you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won'."
...
"I want that to be so strong and so good," he said. "I want to get to the bottom. If Russia hacked, if Russia did anything having to do with our election, I want to know about it." |
So are we taking the words of the President as meaningful or not? If we are, then his complaint regarding Mr. Comey seems to revolve around the story (which he bemoans), not | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
