[MortMan]

The key phrase from the statute is “money or other thing of value”, and (to my knowledge) information given with no exchange of another thing of value has always been outside the definition of “thing of value”. Napolitano’s pronouncement otherwise that the FEC has decided this contradicts court cases that, IIRC, decided the principle.

[for-q-clinton]

She solicited the info.

[ClearCase_guy]

The key phrase from the statute is “money or other thing of value”, and (to my knowledge) information given with no exchange of another thing of value has always been outside the definition of “thing of value”.

I would agree with that.

On the other hand, Hillary paid millions for the Steele Dossier that the British and Russians put together for her at her request. You got the soliciting, receiving, and value right there.

[Boogieman]

There’s also the issue of “receiving” something of value. If some foreigner hands me a check I can refuse to receive it and give it back to him. If some foreigner whispers a dirty secret in my ear, I can hardly refuse to hear it and give it back to him.

So in order for someone to be guilty of a crime there, it seems to me that there must be at least the possibility for them to have actively avoided committing a crime. How can you indict someone for something that happened to them in which they were a totally passive actor?