Cont: Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
If you hired someone to find dirt on your opponent, that in itself would not be illegal. If they turned out to be a foreign national, that would not be illegal. If you solicited foreign assistance, that would be. If someone you knew to be a foreigner solicited you, you are obligated to turn them down and in fact report them.

This really is not that hard.
Click to expand...

Actually, it kind of is . . .

For example, what's the difference between hiring someone foreign and soliciting foreign assistance? Sounds like the same thing to me. The FEC rule even allows for foreign nationals to volunteer on campaigns. So, if a foreign national approaches a campaign with dirt on an opponent and volunteers that information, it isn't clear to me that such is illegal on it's face.

Even so, I don't think that is the real legal point of contention. It's if there was a quid pro quo agreement: We give you dirt and help you win the election; you ease sanctions, etc and/or if there was a conspiracy amongst the Trump campaign and Russian agents to commit crimes. Getting dirt on your opponent is not a crime; aiding Russian agents to hack the DNC servers is.

This isn't a simple area of law, obviously.
 
xjx388 said:
Actually, it kind of is . . .

For example, what's the difference between hiring someone foreign and soliciting foreign assistance? Sounds like the same thing to me. The FEC rule even allows for foreign nationals to volunteer on campaigns. So, if a foreign national approaches a campaign with dirt on an opponent and volunteers that information, it isn't clear to me that such is illegal on it's face.

Even so, I don't think that is the real legal point of contention. It's if there was a quid pro quo agreement: We give you dirt and help you win the election; you ease sanctions, etc and/or if there was a conspiracy amongst the Trump campaign and Russian agents to commit crimes. Getting dirt on your opponent is not a crime; aiding Russian agents to hack the DNC servers is.

This isn't a simple area of law, obviously.
Click to expand...

No, you're deliberately making it harder than it is. If a foreign national offers you dirt on your opponent, he is offering something of value. That in itself is a crime. A quid pro quo is not required. He simply could be seeking to curry favor.
 
acbytesla said:
No, you're deliberately making it harder than it is. If a foreign national offers you dirt on your opponent, he is offering something of value. That in itself is a crime. A quid pro quo is not required. He simply could be seeking to curry favor.
Click to expand...

But if he is in a position to offer you dirt and you hire him to provide such, that's not illegal?

I'm not trying to make it harder, I'm trying to understand it myself.
 
Ziggurat said:
Conspiracy to do what? Conspiracies are only criminal if they are conspiracies to commit a crime. What's the underlying crime being alleged here?
Click to expand...

18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.

The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation.
Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910)

To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.

It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.
Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188.
 
Prometheus said:
Who's to say they haven't already got exactly what the wanted in the first place--POTUS effectively compromised by the appearance of collusion and subsequent investigation?
Click to expand...

You think Trump is effectively compromised? :boggled:

Got any specific examples?
 
acbytesla said:
18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.

The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation.
Click to expand...


And what function are you claiming was going to be interfered with?
 
xjx388 said:
But if he is in a position to offer you dirt and you hire him to provide such, that's not illegal?

I'm not trying to make it harder, I'm trying to understand it myself.
Click to expand...

No, that's probably illegal as well. Hiring foreign nationals for your campaign is dubious.
But that really depends on their service. If Chin offers you a good price on MAGA hats, no problem. But if Ivan, who works for the Kremlin says he has been working with Russian hackers who may have hacked into the DNC, it seems likely illegal. Don't you think?



What troubles me so much about the meeting etc, is we don't know what actually took place and what the Russians provided. But we do know this. Paul Manafort who was in that meeting was having regular conversations with an agent of the Kremlin before and after. We know that computer hacking escalated considerably following the meeting. We do know that Trump is alienating long time US allies and is bending over backwards for Russia.

Coincidence? I think not.
 
Ziggurat said:
Legally speaking, what does that even mean? And how exactly do you think it's different than what Steele did?
Click to expand...

The statute was posted a few pages back. It is an image for some reason. A cursory reading seems to support that this could fall under it.

Refer to someone else's analogy about hiring a PI v. someone approaching you in the back of your car offering you a deal you can't refuse.
 
xjx388 said:
But if he is in a position to offer you dirt and you hire him to provide such, that's not illegal?

I'm not trying to make it harder, I'm trying to understand it myself.
Click to expand...


Patience! I'm sure it will be explained in the indictments.
 
acbytesla said:
Holding a fair election, free from foreign interference and influence.
Click to expand...

What exactly counts as foreign influence? Because, I gotta tell ya, if it includes anything that anyone outside the US might say or do to affect an election, then that's simply not possible. You cannot have an election without foreign influence. The fact that we have debates about foreign policy during the presidential campaign should prove that. So it's ridiculous to try to say that the government's proper function is to hold elections without any foreign influence. No, that isn't the government's proper function.

Certain specific forms of influence may be prohibited, but that requires both specifying what those forms are and showing that they apply here. And you aren't even close to doing that. For example, if the claim is that it's illegal for foreigners to give information to a campaign that may cause reputational harm to that campaign's opponent, well, then the meeting might qualify for that. But 1) it's not illegal, and 2) that's what the Steele dossier on Trump that Hillary commissioned is.

So you really haven't told me what the alleged crime actually is. You've just thrown out these vague umbrella terms which don't actually seem to apply.
 
Dr. Keith said:
The statute was posted a few pages back. It is an image for some reason. A cursory reading seems to support that this could fall under it.

Refer to someone else's analogy about hiring a PI v. someone approaching you in the back of your car offering you a deal you can't refuse.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about this post?

Yeah, no. I don't think speech qualifies as a "thing of value". And again, this legal theory would catch the Steele dossier as being criminal as well. I don't buy it, it's not credible.
 
Ziggurat said:
What exactly counts as foreign influence? Because, I gotta tell ya, if it includes anything that anyone outside the US might say or do to affect an election, then that's simply not possible. You cannot have an election without foreign influence. The fact that we have debates about foreign policy during the presidential campaign should prove that. So it's ridiculous to try to say that the government's proper function is to hold elections without any foreign influence. No, that isn't the government's proper function.

Certain specific forms of influence may be prohibited, but that requires both specifying what those forms are and showing that they apply here. And you aren't even close to doing that. For example, if the claim is that it's illegal for foreigners to give information to a campaign that may cause reputational harm to that campaign's opponent, well, then the meeting might qualify for that. But 1) it's not illegal, and 2) that's what the Steele dossier on Trump that Hillary commissioned is.

So you really haven't told me what the alleged crime actually is. You've just thrown out these vague umbrella terms which don't actually seem to apply.
Click to expand...

Engaging in a little reductio ad absurdum I see.

Really, you don't think holding fair elections free from foreign interference and influence isn't a proper function of our government? So why do we have countless laws prohibiting their influence? Why then is it ok for a candidate to accept a contribution from a US citizen and it is illegal to accept one for a foreign national or government? Why don't candidates seek contributions from governments from around the world?

That other nations or foreigners might want to influence our elections I think is a given. Meeting with the campaign manager, his deputy, the candidates offspring and son in law in the middle of a National Presidential campaign to deliver dirt on the opposition is beyond the pale.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom