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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
Define “foreign agent”.
You left out one crucial fact. What’s the candidates name?
You left out one crucial fact. What’s the candidates name?
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 !
Bookmark
commie obama plant to get FISA !!
https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/885184428367990784
What about close relative of candidate?
Doesn’t matter.
They want Pres. Trump
Define “High Crimes” and “Misdemeanors” and you’ve got your answer.
Scary, huh ?
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.
None illegal by themselves.
Foreign agents (represnting another country’s interests in America) are required to register with the DOJ, and to disclose certain information.
What if there were damning information about Hillary and it was giving and what if that information was treasonous and against the law? What would they do?
1. a candidate meets with a foreign agent to get dirt on their opponent, but no information changes hands. legal or illegal?
If no information changed hands, nothing happened. LEGAL
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?
As long as information was legally obtained and there was no law against receipt of that information on some technicality, LEGAL.(Sometimes there are two governments involved. One may not recognize the information as top secret. The other may, and may have rules in place to forbid it.)
3. a candidate meets with a foreign agent to get dirt on their opponent, foreign agent gives info, receives financial compensation. Legal or illegal?
As long as information was legally obtained and there was no law against receipt of that information or paying for it on some technicality, LEGAL. (Again: Sometimes there are two governments involved. One may not recognize the information as top secret. The other may, and may have rules in place to forbid it.)
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?
The person obtaining the information could be seen as being the party of a conspiracy to obtain classified information. A foreign government or even our own could deem that actionable. Governments have a duty to keep certain things confidential.
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?
This could up the anti on number four, in that money changed hands. This would seem to make a case against the third party (the one paying for the information), more sustainable.
We're all anti-government on some level. We respect the government but want it to but out most of the time.
The best way to think about this, so we don't get too jacked up against the government, is how we looked at it when Hillary Clinton put classified information on an insecure server. We didn't approve of that at all.
There are limits to how information is obtained, handled, and disbursed. I think that is reasoned.
I am trying to think of a criminal statute for this. Attempted acceptance of a solicitation to freely provide negative facts on an opposing candidate from an individual who has no such facts and does not provide any in a 15 minute meeting. Seems to me the individual showing up for the meeting could have been alleged “Trump cheerleader” Putin himself and we still do not have a crime unless a definitive quid pro quo of government favors can be proven.Oh, that’s right, Trump was not even an elected official and had no government favors to barter.That’s a Hillary specialty.Collusion,you say. Collusion how? You mean sometime thereafter Trump allowed Putin access to DNC systems and allowed them to hack Podesta’s e mails and distribute them publicly and did not punish the Russians. Oh, that’s right Trump had no access to DNC systems and had no authority to punish the Russians. That’s an Obama thing. Was there ever a presidential candidate campaign staff in history that would not take such a meeting including Hillary and Obama?Wasn’t this called campaign politics in the old days? Now all of a sudden the DNC mouthpiece NYT is trying to create a somethinggate narrative for it.This does not even rise to the level of fake news. It is no news.
If somebody called you and wanted to show you a video of Hillary Clinton during election night would you invite them to your office?
Collusion is secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others in order to gain an advantage. It has nothing to do with immediate compensation or lack of compensation, according to my limited understanding. Long term gain works as well.
Also, I think that just making the plan to cooperate doesn't make it collusion if the plan is not implemented. But if the plan is implemented, it doesn't need to be successful for the collusion to have occurred as a matter of definition.
One last thing: Collusion is not necessarily illegal. I can collude with my SIL to plan a surprise party for my brother without breaking any laws. It is the purpose of the collusion that makes it legal or illegal.