And can you still support him?

[JimL]

And yet Mueller never cited this law in his report, and he never indicted Trump Jr. despite the fact that it would have given the dirty cop tremendous leverage over the President.

Nevermind the fact that it's a huge stretch to call information about a political opponent "something of value".

Yep, Dirty cop Mueller was being extra nice here to Trump Jr. Mueller balked! He stated something to the effect that Don Jr. and the gang may not have known that what they were doing was a crime and that they didn't get what they thought they were getting anyway, so, no harm no fowl, so to speak. But ignorance of the law is no excuse, and neither is the fact that there attempted crime failed to produce the goods they were after an excuse. Mueller could have nailed their butts to the wall for conspiring to accept a thing of value from a foriegn adversary, even though they didn't get that thing.

[Mountain Man]

Mueller never came to the conclusion that Trump and his administration didn't commit any crimes. He said, that if he could have come to that conclusion, he certainly would have said so!

He said he lacked the evidence to reach that conclusion that he did, and top DOJ officials agreed.

[Mountain Man]

Yep, Dirty cop Mueller was being extra nice here to Trump Jr. Mueller balked! He stated something to the effect that Don Jr. and the gang may not have known that what they were doing was a crime and that they didn't get what they thought they were getting anyway, so, no harm no fowl, so to speak. But ignorance of the law is no excuse, and neither is the fact that there attempted crime failed to produce the goods they were after an excuse. Mueller could have nailed their butts to the wall for conspiring to accept a thing of value from a foriegn adversary, even though they didn't get that thing.

So you're back to the "Mueller was incompetent" defense.

[oxmixmudd]

I gave an example of how to identify how a person has violated the law. If you want to propose that Trump has violated this law, we would benefit by you laying out the basic elements that make a case against Trump. Did he solicit Trudeau for a donation of $101? If there was any soliciting by Trump, how much value was Trump seeking?

From what im seeing from MM second hand and this comment from you it would appear to me you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

To try to say dirt on an opponent is not 'something of value', or that 'value' only refers to a dollar amount is ludicrous. The wording of the statute is such that it is clear it is a very broad definition that easily includes this sort of exchange.

Jim

[mikewhitney]

From what im seeing from MM second hand and this comment from you it would appear to me you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

To try to say dirt on an opponent is not 'something of value', or that 'value' only refers to a dollar amount is ludicrous. The wording of the statute is such that it is clear it is a very broad definition that easily includes this sort of exchange.

Jim

It sounds like you are resorting to an option rather than defining an actual crime. You could go through the exercise even if you don't wish to share the results.

[oxmixmudd]

It sounds like you are resorting to an option rather than defining an actual crime. You could go through the exercise even if you don't wish to share the results.

I don't really understand what the point is you're trying to make. The russians wanted to give the trump administration information they could use to help the win the election. That information has value. It may not have a price on it in $$$, but that is the point.

The reason it is illegal to take 'things of value' from a foreign nation whether or not they have an explicit monetary value is that we do not want foreign nations having the capacity to manipulate or control our leaders. Once help has been accepted, a debt is implied. That debt has to be paid. And payment comes in the form of favorable policy or legislation for the nation(s) providing the information or help.

To suggest such an exchange doesn't happen is to be ignorant of the history of the world.

To suggest preventing such an exchange is not the point of the statute is to be ignorant of the philosophy and driving force behind much of the reason for the structure and form of our government.

As i wrote earlier, 'any thing of value' would necessarily cover those things that do not involve a direct monetary value, but which can incur a debt - again not necessarily of direct monetary value.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

To try to say dirt on an opponent is not 'something of value', or that 'value' only refers to a dollar amount is ludicrous.

Except the law you cited specifically refers to monetary value: "contribution or donation of money or other thing of value". Can you really put a price tag on political "dirt"? I don't see how. And even if you could, who gets to decide what it's worth?

[mikewhitney]

I don't really understand what the point is you're trying to make. The russians wanted to give the trump administration information they could use to help the win the election. That information has value. It may not have a price on it in $$$, but that is the point.

The reason it is illegal to take 'things of value' from a foreign nation whether or not they have an explicit monetary value is that we do not want foreign nations having the capacity to manipulate or control our leaders. Once help has been accepted, a debt is implied. That debt has to be paid. And payment comes in the form of favorable policy or legislation for the nation(s) providing the information or help.

To suggest such an exchange doesn't happen is to be ignorant of the history of the world.

To suggest preventing such an exchange is not the point of the statute is to be ignorant of the philosophy and driving force behind much of the reason for the structure and form of our government.

As i wrote earlier, 'any thing of value' would necessarily cover those things that do not involve a direct monetary value, but which can incur a debt - again not necessarily of direct monetary value.

Jim

Note that Congress can make a law stating that information (dirt) on an opponent from a foreign national would be treated as a violation of the code. This sort of change to the law would make your 'case' valid in the future -- if in fact there was dirt and it was solicited. It sure would be better to have an actual violation of law rather than have to make something up from thin air.

If you have a law that was possibly broken, you can list that. Such information would help spark the discussion.

[lilpixieofterror]

The AG is arguably not an objective source. He's a Trump yes-man. So you'll need to do better than that. Unfortunately, this is where we are headed with Trump. If the people enforcing the laws are themselves corrupt - refusing to enforce the laws when it comes to POTUS, then our system of justice simply cannot work. The presumption of innocence becomes a farce when the people in power selectively enforce the law or refuse to hold accountable those that have broken the law.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

That's true, and the trial for a President is called impeachment and it takes place in Congress which is where Mueller intended for it to take place, until Trumps hand picked lackey of an Atty. Gen. decided to try and evade that process by declaring himself that the President was innocent. That's why Barr auditioned for the job in the first place and the audition is the reason that Trump appointed him. Trump is filling government positions with yes men, idiots and lobbyists and you, the cult members, are either to psychologically blind to see it, or you just don't care and are apparently not lovers of democracy. I suppose the former could be understood and forgiven on some level, but if the latter be the case, if you see and don't care, then I would consider you to be just as treasonous as the criminal leader of your cult.
The only question then is, are you blind to what Trump is doing, brainwashed in some way, or are you treasonous?

Nice tin foil hat, why did Rod Rosenstein sign the letter that said no crime happened? Keep swallowing that MSM propaganda, now where is the list of crimes committed, with evidence they happened?

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah, except Mueller never came to the conclusion that Trump and his administration didn't commit any crimes. He said, that if he could have come to that conclusion, he certainly would have said so!

Also know as innocent or does innocent till proven guilty not apply because TRUMP! Funny how those accusing Trump of destroying the rule of law are themselves working hard on destroying the rule of law.

[rogue06]

Except the law you cited specifically refers to monetary value: "contribution or donation of money or other thing of value". Can you really put a price tag on political "dirt"? I don't see how. And even if you could, who gets to decide what it's worth?

Yup. This has been brought up by several attorneys on various 'talking head' shows. Apparently when the law was written the authors had money or physical goods in mind -- not things like information.

[rogue06]

Also know as innocent or does innocent till proven guilty not apply because TRUMP! Funny how those accusing Trump of destroying the rule of law are themselves working hard on destroying the rule of law.

Many of those on the left have long held things like laws and rules in utter disdain and contempt seeing even the U.S. Constitution as being little more than a rough guide or 'suggestions' that can mean whatever you want at any given moment.

[Roy]

The statute may be this one:

Source: FEC campaign law

or other thing
of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a
contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or
local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a
political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or
disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the
meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
Title 52. Voting and Elections
82
Federal Election Campaign Laws
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or
donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from
a foreign national.

© Copyright Original Source

Yeah, that's the one. It's been cited here on multiple occasions, despite MM's claim to the contrary.

[Roy]

Nevermind the fact that it's a huge stretch to call information about a political opponent "something of value".

Except the law you cited specifically refers to monetary value: "contribution or donation of money or other thing of value". Can you really put a price tag on political "dirt"?

Utterly clueless.