Hypothetical "collusion" question for FR Legal Minds

[Cubs Fan]

Which of the follwing "collusions", if any, would be illegal?

1. a candidate meets with a foreign agent to get dirt on their opponent, but no information changes hands. legal or illegal?

2. a candidate meets with a foreign agent to get dirt on their opponent, foreign agent gives info, but asks for no compensation. Legal or illegal?

3. a candidate meets with a foreign agent to get dirt on their opponent, foreign agent gives info, receives financial compensation. Legal or illegal?

4. a candidate meets with a foreign agent to get dirt on their opponent, foreign agent gives info, which was illegally obtained, but gets no compensation. Legal or Illegal?

5. a candidate meets with a foreign agent to get dirt on their opponent, foreign agent gives info, which was illegally obtained, gets financially compensated. Legal or illegal?

[Cubs Fan]

I could be wrong, but I don't think any of these are illegal. But maybe someone out there knows better. thanks in advance.

[SSS Two]

I would like to think that the exchange of information — with or without compensation — is a form of Free Speech. Why would we want to limit the exchange of information, especially if it is true?

[TBP]

I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV, but if I got that offer, I’d turn it over to the FBI or come other appropriate agency and let them figure out what the legalities are.

[Pollster1]

They are all illegal if you’re a liberal and admit under oath while the FBI is recording that you intended to break the law. Or, they are illegal if you’re a patriot and have Russian dressing on your salad that year (or drink Russian vodka).

[Rockingham]

None of the scenarios are clearly illegal but any of them can be problematic, depending on the details of who the foreign agent is, whether he is acting privately or for a foreign government, the larger context of the campaign's dealings with them, the nature of the information, and the illegality in obtaining it.

The larger point is that the candidate or a high level campaign official should never have meetings of that nature, and the candidate should be mostly kept in the dark if the campaign has any such dealings, with any information passed on through counsel. This helps limit the political and reputational risk to the candidate and provides a legal basis for confidentiality and for an advice of counsel defense for the candidate.

[sourcery]

Excerpt from Don Jr.'s Russia meeting wasn't collusion — just amateur hour (the author is Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University):

One image that a lot of experts see in these stories is a possible violation of the federal law banning foreign contributions to federal campaigns — ironically the very claim that the meeting was called to discuss with regard to Hillary Clinton. The relevant law is 36 U.S.C. 510, which bars direct or indirect contributions or other things of value from a foreign national. MSNBC justice and security analyst Matthew Miller said Trump Jr. could now go to jail because “it doesn’t have to be money … it can be, potentially, accepting information. So he’s potentially confessing in his statement to committing a crime.”

Of course, the crux is “other thing of value.” Under this approach, a court would have to include information as a thing of value like money and then declare that Trump Jr. solicited the information by agreeing to go to the meeting. If that were the case, the wide array of meetings by politicians and their aides with foreign nationals would suddenly become possible criminal violations.

It is common for foreign governments to withhold or take actions to influence elections in other countries. Information is often shared through various channels during elections from lobbyists, non-government organizations, and government officials. This includes former Clinton aide Alexandra Chalupa, who allegedly worked with Ukrainian government officials and journalists to come up with dirt on Trump and Manafort.

Consider the implications of such an unprecedented extension of the criminal code. The sharing of information — even possible criminal conduct by a leading political figure — would be treated the same as accepting cash. It would constitute a major threat to free speech, the free press and the right of association. It would also expose a broad spectrum of political speech to possible criminal prosecution.

Executive branch officials could then investigate campaigns on any meetings where information or tips might have originated from a foreign source. Such an expansion would likely hit challengers the hardest, since sitting presidents not only control the Justice Department, but the government has a myriad of back channels in communicating with foreign officials.

While those contacts could be dismissed as “official communications,” a challenger could be viewed as consorting with foreigners. Under this interpretation, the act of a foreign non-government organization or foreign academic feeding an American damaging information on Trump’s foreign investments or business activities could be viewed as a federal crime.

[Repeal The 17th]

Define “foreign agent”.

[Rock N Jones]

You left out one crucial fact. What’s the candidates name?

[Rock N Jones]

You left out one crucial fact. What’s the candidates name?

[chris37]

You mean like when they exonerated Hillary Clinton of multiple serious felonies by adding “intent” to laws that do not require the element of intent?

I’ll take a pass on letting the corrupt FBI investigate anything any more.

[Bulwinkle]

Wouldn’t the Trump dossier which was put together by a foreign national be illegal???

[Political Junkie Too]

...if I got that offer, I’d turn it over to the FBI...

What would you do if you knew the FBI was run by the friends of the opponent you just received dirt on?

-PJ

[seastay]

We live in a free society where information and truths are not illegal to obtain and or repeat, as long as the information is not copyrighted. Starting with the Hillary wiki leaks scandal, liberals have inferred that it is somehow a crime for voters being informed through the free speech of the press, which is a lie, in fact our elections are made better if voters are informed,

Contrast the liberals false narrative to their own actions, they are ok paying foreign governments to create false news and disinformation, e.g. the Trump dossier . Liberals are also ok taking bribes from foreign governments, such as the Clintons being paid to give Putin uranium rights..

Bribes and working with enemy governments on Psychological warfare to effect elections are the real crimes ... on the other hand free speech and business ventures even payed information is not a crime, that's our right !

[Jimmy The Snake]

A am not a Lawyer either, but I slept at a Holiday Inn express. I would consult my lawyer before going to the FBI and bring my lawyer o the FBI chat.

I would not want to go to the Cops unless I was sure I did not commit a crime in talking about getting or paying for this kind of info. Do not assume the are your friends in this case without a consult

[Mase]

Bookmark

[Cubs Fan]

Thanks for that post

The relevant law is 36 U.S.C. 510, which bars direct or indirect contributions or other things of value from a foreign national.

Didn't Bill Clinton gets a whole bunch of donations from the Chinese when he was in office?

[biggredd1]

commie obama plant to get FISA !!
https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/885184428367990784

[Yaelle]

What about close relative of candidate?

[stylin19a]

Doesn’t matter.
They want Pres. Trump
Define “High Crimes” and “Misdemeanors” and you’ve got your answer.
Scary, huh ?

[AnonymousConservative]

What they said on TV was that the aid must have value, which it was implied meant monetary value. As an example they said polling data had value, because you would have to pay for it elsewhere.

So if the Russians had offered money, logistic support, or transportation, it would have been a problem.

I am not a lawyer, but my impression was gossip or information does not have monetary value, so DT2 will be just fine, though you won’t know it from the fake news.