Two links from Law Newz dicussing this issue:
http://lawnewz.com/opinion/why-donald-trump-jr-is-innocent-period/
http://lawnewz.com/opinion/sorry-but-the-constitution-actually-protects-trump-jr-from-prosecution/
From the first link:
The Code of Federal Regulations makes the law immunizing Trump Jr.’s actions precisely clear: any foreign national individual may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The law provides this volunteer “exemption” as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone on the campaign. See 11 CFR 100.74. For example, as the Federal Election Commission advises all, “an individual can provide volunteer services to a candidate or party without considering the value of those service a contribution to the candidate or party.” Section 30121 of Title 52 does not apply to voluntary activity or services. The thing “of value” must be actual money, or its transferable equivalent, not a volunteer of services or information.
Definition of collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
So taking a meeting with a person with the intent of getting factual details on one’s opponent is not illegal and not intended to cheat or deceive. It’s intended to gain knowledge that can then be shared to allow the voters to make a more informed decision.
Just like when the leftist Hollyweird types were offering rewards for anyone who could produce dirt on Trump. Except DJT Jr. wasn’t offering to pay anyone for information.
Not collusion, not illegal, not a unique or even unusual situation. Stuff like this probably happens every election cycle.
The Clinton campaign took and used info from the Ukraine. No one called that collusion
Forgot one:
6. A seated, sworn President asks an OFFICIAL or the Russian government to give him some “space” because he will have much more “flexibility” after the election.
****
“I understand your message about space,” replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May.
“This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.
“I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev, Putin’s protégé and long considered number two in Moscow’s power structure.
Bill Clinton and Al Gore took political donations from the Chinese Communists and no one cared on the left or in the media open your back and always forgiven after the election nice long if you can get it
after listening to more than a few talking heads, it appears #1 is legal and #2 is legal if the FBI is called afterward and given the skinny
everything else is illegal because even tho the receiving party didn’t compensate, they still received ‘something of value’
McLame, the DNC, Fusion GPS, and Hillary (by proxy since the dossier was on her server to be circulated) are all guilty under #3-5. So is the PAC that obtained and published Melania’s modeling pics.
If we had honest reporters, they’d be all over the DNC. But unfortunately the MSM has devolved into backbiters, gossippers, nitpickers and rabble-rousers intent on protecting the Dems.
3. a candidate meets with a foreign agent to get dirt on their opponent, foreign agent gives info, receives financial compensation. Legal or illegal?
- Bribery
[A]ll civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. US Const, Art. II, Sec. 4.
Technically, this clause could be construed to apply only to those already in office. But it would seem to me that a political candidate, especially for an office in the Federal Government, would be under this constitutional rule. I think you could stay within original intent and construe this rule to include actions taken by those vying for an office of the Federal Government once they actually are elected to the office.
As far as I know, it doesn't matter who actually gets paid money in a bribe, right? It's a quid pro quo regardless of who actually gets the dough.
- Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. US Const, Art. III, Sec. 3, Cl. 1.
Treason would come into play if the foreign agent represented an enemy of the U.S. If so, compensating the agent could be considered giving the enemy aid and comfort, and would, therefore, be treasonous and illegal.
Don't know if there are any cases on point.
4 & 5. a candidate meets with a foreign agent to get dirt on their opponent, foreign agent gives info, which was illegally obtained, regardless of financially compensation. Legal or illegal?
- high Crimes and Misdemeanors
If the candidate knew the info was illegally obtained, the candidate could be a co-conspirator, accomplice or accessory in assisting in the illegality of getting the info.
5. There is probably some law against this, the rest is fine
Collude is akin to conspire. They are both inchoate crimes, meaning they can not exist alone as a crime. They only rise to a crime if two or more individuals agree in concert to commit an underlying substantive crime.
The answer in each case is no. This conclusion is arrived at based that on the fact the “value” of whatever baloney b/s was provided was negligible. Otherwise it would have been known during the campaign. Whatever might have been paid would make no difference. In Texas we would say that whatever you might have paid is the extent to which you got skinned.
We need more information. (R) candidate or (D) candidate?
I’ll need a retainer first.
My guess is that if the person receiving the information is a Democrat, all 5 would be considered legal.
If the receiver is a Republican, all 5 are grounds for frogmarching, body shaming and relocation to Levenworth, KS. Or Guantanemo Bay, Cuba.