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.
thanks. So that locks Comey and Fusion GPS to the naughty list, since Comey allegedly authorized an alleged $50K or more payment to a specific double (triple?) foreign agent acting on behalf of certain alleged republican interest parties and then the DNC, under the auspices of Fusion GPS-who also channeled compensation to the same foreign agent(s), specifically hired to introduce damaging information into the presidential campaign.
Your point three is incorrect
Dershowitz and other constitutional scholars have said clearly that Donald Jr committed no crimes
As for treason, that requires an "enemy" (foreign or domestic) to whom "aid and comfort" are provided. There has never been any official definition which provides a comprehensive test of who would qualify as an "enemy," although a nation with whom the US is officially at war (by Congressional declaration) would certainly qualify. Ultimately, that's a political question. If Russia is an enemy, then there are many joint programs and exchanges going on between the US and Russia that would qualify as treason.
The Supreme Court has already answered the question of whether it's legal to receive information which was obtained illegally by someone else. You can find out their answer by reading about the Pentagon Papers. I'll leave that as an exercise for the audience.
“[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.”
I think it would be a stretch for a candidate not holding government position at the time to be defined as a civil officer. Clearly the incumbent would be but an opponent completely divorced from government would not seem to be.I say that because the thrust of the bribery provisions is to discourage civil officers from trading on their positions in government and the contacts they make during their service to advance their interest. Obama would not be directly permitted to pay for info from Putin but Trump because he was not in government and thus he would not have made contact with Russia as a result of discharge of government duties. Having said that, the reality is they all pay for negative info even info coming from foreign sources through layers of campaign staff on one side and layers of foreign government agents on the other and keep the candidate insulated from the activity. Lastly how do we define an enemy? The political reality is right now Russia is called as an enemy by many. As a matter of diplomacy State does not call them an enemy. Others see them more as a irritating pain in the butt of no real threat of directly attacking the US.Is an enemy a country we do not like because their are many of those on the globe. Personally I think there currently are truly only 3 enemies of the US right now that can lead to direct confrontation NK, Iran and lesser extent China. All others range from friends like Israel to irritating pains in the ass like Russia.
Bribery requires a quid pro quo with an identifiable "official act". I rather doubt DJT Jr. performed any official act (or even promised one) for Natalia Veselnitskaya. Now Honest Services Fraud (HSF) only requires the exchange of "things of value" (TOVs) with the corrupt intent to influence a public official's action. It seems to me that even the "bribery-lite" HSF statute doesn't apply here. In order for DJT Jr. to be guilty of HSF, he'd have to receive a TOV, not provide a TOV. Even if we assume DJT Jr. paid for the information, the TOV is going from DJT Jr. to Veselnitskaya. DJT Jr. can't be criminally responsible for providing a TOV with the corrupt attempt to influence a public official. It would be a stretch to argue that Veselnitskaya's information was the TOV if DJT Jr. paid for it. If that was the case, it wouldn't be any different from a campaign paying a caterer to cater an event. How can that be HSF?
This is false. Even if DJT Jr. knew the info was illegally obtained, he could legally receive and disseminate the information. See Bartnicki v. Vopper. In order for DJT Jr. to be criminally culpable, he'd have to enter into a conspiracy to illegally obtain the information in the first place.
As reflected in numerous cases, there is a fundamental antagonism by the Supreme Court and other federal courts against using expansive interpretations of treason and criminal statutes against common political conduct. Not only is a quid pro quo agreement hard to prove, but the common and instinctive practice of politics is to avoid them. As for Donald Trump, Jr., he did nothing wrong but was artfully drawn into a politically embarrassing meeting, a tactical error that stemmed not from dishonesty or disloyalty but from inexperience and incaution.