I don't think that's the reason for the law, and even if it were, the interpretation being suggested here is still far too broad to serve that purpose, since it applies even in cases where there is no serious possibility of quid pro quo. This is an unconstitutionally broad interpretation of the statute.
Thank you for your opinion, but until the actual Supreme Court says otherwise, factual information is generally understood to be a thing of value.
It didn't become clear that they were looking for something specific in return until the meeting took place, and as far as we know no deal happened.
Well, if they go to court with that level of stupidity as their defense, then I predict it will not go well, but hopefully we'll see. Junior admits that he turned down the deal because he thought the dirt wasn't good enough, not because of any concern for laws or even ethics. And "as far as we know no deal happened" doesn't mean much with this pack of liars who have tried so hard to prevent us from knowing anything at all. They have given several different versions of the meeting now, and those lies are further evidence of criminal intent.
I'm not claiming it's not valuable. I'm claiming it cannot qualify as a "thing of value" under the statutory definition, or that if it does, that renders the law unconstitutional.
Then you're essentially asserting that the First Amendment renders all sorts of laws unconstitutional, which sounds rather silly.
First, the hacking wasn't public knowledge until after the meeting.
It wasn't "public" knowledge, but we now know that Russian attempts to get in with Trump began at least in 2015, before Trump even announced.
Second, the information offered could not have come from the hacking anyways.
LOL, even if they didn't know about the hacking, the Trumpsters were told that the information was coming from the Russian government, so they should have assumed that it was coming from some sort of espionage. Is that a crime?
Third, you're wrong: if a crime already took place, then talking about it afterwards, even in secret, doesn't constitute a crime. This is why the NYT doesn't get charged with criminal conspiracy when they publish information from the Wikileaks hack.
Yes, but to be more precise, any
use of the hacked material would be a further crime:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/collusion-trump-russia-campaign.html
NYTimes said:
What about illegal hacking?
There is no public evidence, as things stand, of any clandestine discussions between Russian officials or surrogates and the Trump campaign about disseminating the emails of Democrats that American intelligence officials say Russia hacked. In July 2016, however, the elder
Mr. Trump publicly urged Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton’s emails; his spokesman later insisted that was a joke.
But the Justice Department investigation is still unfolding. If it were to come to light that Russian officials did consult Trump campaign officials about the timing or tactics of the release of the stolen emails, that could raise the possibility of conspiracy charges under
Section 1030 of Title 18, which bars unauthorized computer intrusions, specialists said.
.
Sure, [intent] is a factor in sentencing. But that's getting a little ahead of things.
Nope, proving intent is necessary for most criminal charges.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
Wikipedia said:
Mens rea (
/ˈmɛnz ˈriːə/;
Law Latin for
"guilty mind"[1][2][3]) is the mental element of 1) intention to commit a crime or 2) knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a necessary
element of many
crimes.
The standard
common law test of criminal
liability is expressed in the
Latin phrase
actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not
culpable unless the mind is guilty". In
jurisdictions with
due process, there must be both
actus reus ("guilty act") and
mens rea for a defendant to be guilty of a crime (see
concurrence). As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in
criminal law. Exceptions are known as
strict liability crimes.
It's clear that these particular Best People had an intent to accept information from foreign nationals which they believed would be of great value in electing Trump. It's inconceivable that they wouldn't expect to give anything in return, but that doesn't really matter if they get charged with soliciting an in-kind service. And I don't think it will matter much if they were too stupid to realize that accepting the services of Russian espionage might be illegal.
