FEC chair responds to Trump saying he'd accept foreign intel on opponent: 'It is illegal'

The Hill ^ | 06/13/19 | Rebecca Klar

[zaxtres]

You made the original claim. You are completely wrong. See https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/anything-of-value/ -----------------------------

Here let’s use your definition that you posted https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/anything-of-value/. I am going to refer you the paragraph that starts out "Anything of value does not include” Then move down to d which states “information or promotional items;”.

Combine that with what Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub stated "Let me make something 100 percent clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election".

Then put it all into the context of the interview

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your campaign this time around, if foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on opponents, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?

TRUMP: I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen, I don’t, there’s nothing wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, “We have information on your opponent.” Oh, I think I’d want to hear it.

So if information is not of value, according to your definition, then Trump would break no laws listening to Russians, Chinese or someone else offering information on opponents because it does not break the clause “anything of value".

However, the FEC Chairwoman is arguing, in regard to what Trump said in his interview with Trump, that opposition information from a foreign national is “anything of value” and therefore illegal. How can information not be anything of value in the legal definition you present yet be considered to the FEC a thing of value and therefore illegal.

The whole argument is predicated on the statement Trump retorted to Stephanopoulos’ question. You cannot point to a definition because definitions change. You must use evidence with real-world value. Meaning it must have precedence for the definition to be valid. The FEC Chairwoman says information has value but not in a pecuniary way because it is information. You are saying it’s all about the Benjamin’s, which is the wrong argument in this case because the point of the question had nothing to do with a pecuniary item.

Match. Set. Point. Game Over.

[MortMan]

If my reliance on a definition is wrong, as you assert, then your reliance on the words for the FEC chairman is equally wrong. Legal definitions are used to frame the wording in laws and judgments. If we allow those definitions to abruptly change, we allow our opponents the power to win every battle - because conservatives use the terms the way they are meant to be used, rather for what we wish them to be.

I am willing to concede that I have not proven my case to your satisfaction. We disagree. I will have to work on my ability to cite relevant court cases, which I know is lacking due to not being employed in the legal field.

You failed to convince me, as well, in the end relying on an opinion of the FEC chairman, but not citing any relevant cases.

The fact that Ms. Weintraub is stating exactly the position of every leftist media outlet and politician we are hearing from gives me pause.

We disagree, but let us do so agreeably.

[zaxtres]

You failed to convince me, as well, in the end relying on an opinion of the FEC chairman, but not citing any relevant cases.

-----------

You have the burden of proof when you claimed the courts agree with your side. Then when I asked you to bring forth a case you instead brought a definition that was not even from Black's Law Dictionary. Then you attacked me rather than attacking the argument.

You have totally lost this debate on all merits. Your reliance on the definition is wrong according to your own definition. To the matter of the FEC Chairwoman, you will have to take that up with her. The context of the letter and more specifically the statement in which she wrote referred to the Stephanopoulos interview with the POTUS. In that context the question was about information. So she is referencing only information in the "other things of value". You cannot think otherwise based on the retort and on the question presented. The response is what sent the left into a tizzy, that information brought by a foreigner was and is illegal.

Look at it this way your definition refers to the candidate receiving a pecuniary item - a thing of value. If the Russians brought information and your definition states information is not anything of value, then how does the statement the FEC CHairwoman wrote coincide with the response from our President as being illegal. It does not make sense. Why? Because if the Russians were to be selling information, then by your definition the POTUS/Candidate would need to be the receiver of the pecuniary item. The POTUS/Candidate is not in this case. Even if you read further into your definition, it states that anything of value can later be turned into money. But your definition also states that its not "anything of value" so, therefore, it cannot be held to the case in which its later turned into monetary value. The FEC Chairwoman's ambiguous response to the interview states it can be and therefore your definition is invalid in most cases when referring to information.

I stated that information has value until it doesn't. In this case, the FEC CHairwoman believes the information supplied by foreign nationals about the opposition candidate has value. Your definition is contradictory to both itself and the FEC Chairwoman's ruling. If you want to continue this argument then you need to take that up with her because you contradict yourself by supplying your definition that is not from Black's Law Dictionary.

And Like I said, Point. Set. Match. Game Over.

[zaxtres]

The POTUS/Candidate is not *the receiver* n this case.