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

[Ziggurat]

This is where Zig got really stupid.
It's a crime
to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.
to say you have a bomb in an airport
to lie to a federal agent or Congress
to say you're going to kill someone
to tell your friend insider information on publicly traded stocks.

The list goes on and on and on of speech that is a crime.

All of which fit the rather narrow exceptions outlined by the Supreme Court in cases such as Brandenburg. And none of which apply here.

 

[acbytesla]

All of which fit the rather narrow exceptions outlined by the Supreme Court in cases such as Brandenburg. And none of which apply here.

No,what applies here is an in-kind contribution from a foreign national or government.

 

[Cain]

If Trump had nothing to do with the initial theft, then the subsequent dissemination is probably legal. The press regularly takes advantage of this distinction, as does Wikileaks.

It's more complicated. The press would almost certainly notify authorities before publication, if only to include comments (or "no comments") in their story. Trump, in this scenario, learns of the theft... and says nothing. Alerts no one.

Also, as a former Russia skeptic wrote in Politico: "we learned that Russian hackers went after Hillary Clinton’s private office for the first time on the very day Trump said, 'Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.'"

Of course, you could contend that it's not Trump's fault, or that it's a mere coincidence. Maybe they were searching e-mails where Hillary shares her unfiltered thoughts on grandchildren and Iron Man.

No, it would not be illegal. I don't think you can criminalize the exercise of a legitimate presidential power. That seems like a clear constitutional violation of the separation of powers, granting Congress the ability to interfere with the executive in such a manner.

Most legal scholars disagree. Of course you can criminalize the exercise of a legitimate power.

Suppose the FBI is investigating Dr. Keith's crime family. Dr. Keith pays a large bribe to the president to fire the FBI Director and end the investigation. Now, normally, this could be difficult to pin on a president because he could always argue that he fired the Director for a bunch of different reasons, but instead he appears on national television and said he did it because of the "Dr. Keith thing" (and testimony from witnesses present at private meetings corroborate the public admission).

It's potentially morally serious, depending on the details. But it's also just speculation.

The premise of the scenario is that he knew a foreign government criminally interfered in the election (stole information). He subsequently lied about it to the public, saying maybe it wasn't Russia.

What was the scandal in Benghazi again? I know, there were so many. Wasn't one of the things that the Obama administration initially suggested that maybe it wasn't a terrorist attack, but they knew. Oh, they definitely knew.

 

[kellyb]

This was not a "contribution" per US election law. It was speech. The idea that you can criminalize speech runs smack up against the 1st amendment.

Well, the supreme court has decided that money is speech, too, but I don't think that means it's now legal to overtly accept millions of dollars in foreign donations just because the gift is "speech".

Really, we don't yet know exactly what kind of case the FBI will end up building, if they build one at all. It probably depends on evidence not yet collected and/or not yet public knowledge.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, the supreme court has decided that money is speech, too,

No they did not. They ruled that speech doesn't stop being speech because you paid for it.

Really, we don't yet know exactly what kind of case the FBI will end up building, if they build one at all. It probably depends on evidence not yet collected and/or not yet public knowledge.

True. We cannot evaluate the merits of non-public information, obviously. But from publicly available information, there is no evidence of a crime at that meeting.

 

[LSSBB]

My reading comprehension is sufficient to interpret the language of your source. And the language of your source makes clear that more than receipt of the information is required in order to take action against the recipient. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand it, you only need to read carefully.

If you want to argue that your own source is wrong, go ahead. But assuming that it is correct, the meaning is clear.

And just think for a moment of the implications of criminalizing the mere act of listening. Can you not understand the first amendment implications?

You couldn't find any source but TV, I find a source having to do with Intellectual Property as a concept, applied in the case of the source to commercial business, and now you are going to use it to defend your position regarding election law? Find your own damn source, on election law, to defend your position. And TV doesn't cut it.

Sheesh. Maybe you should work in Trump's legal department, crafting Tweets for him.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No. This had nothing to do with the DNC hack. The dirt was allegedly about Clinton deals with Russians. Such dirt, if it exists, would never have been on the DNC server, and so could not have been obtained by hacking the DNC.

Podesta's emails were also hacked by the same criminals. They had a lot of Clinton exchanges.

Keep in mind, one reason the Russians didn't find a whole lot of dirt on Clinton is because there wasn't any.

BFD Donna Brazille gave her a debate question that was obvious anyway. There was a bunch of the usual, tell the public this, say that in private, none of it was a major scandal. There was a bunch of stuff about Clinton's positions on Syria, Qatar, Yemen, the kind of things the voting public gets bored reading.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

[blah blah useless semantic argument][snipped petty insults].

Oh dear, there isn't anything left to discuss.

 

[Ziggurat]

Most legal scholars disagree. Of course you can criminalize the exercise of a legitimate power.

Suppose the FBI is investigating Dr. Keith's crime family. Dr. Keith pays a large bribe to the president to fire the FBI Director and end the investigation. Now, normally, this could be difficult to pin on a president because he could always argue that he fired the Director for a bunch of different reasons, but instead he appears on national television and said he did it because of the "Dr. Keith thing" (and testimony from witnesses present at private meetings corroborate the public admission).

You have this exactly wrong, that isn't the conclusion of most legal scholars, and certainly not of the courts.

In your hypothetical, it is the acceptance of the bribe (which is not a legitimate function of office) which is the crime, NOT the firing. In fact, the acceptance of the bribe is a crime even if the firing never occurs (see United States v. Brewster). All of this is old ground, the same issue came up over the attempt to prosecute Rick Perry for a veto, a prosecution which I correctly predicted would fail. The same argument about bribery was used there too, and failed for the same reason.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Has anyone been keeping track of how many Mondays ago the "Monday" in the OP Title was referring to?

 

[Ziggurat]

You couldn't find any source but TV, I find a source having to do with Intellectual Property as a concept, applied in the case of the source to commercial business, and now you are going to use it to defend your position regarding election law? Find your own damn source, on election law, to defend your position. And TV doesn't cut it.

Why bother to find my own source when your source supports my position and not yours?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And was any agreement reached at the meeting? From all reports I've seen, no. Which means that even if the conduct in question was prohibited (which isn't a given), it still wouldn't qualify as a crime in this case.

You seem to have your own unique legal opinion here. Multiple legal experts that aren't on Fox News have said you don't have to get the goods for a crime to have been committed.

Jr's emails exchanges are incriminating all by themselves. And much as Jr and the Trump legal spokes-folks, Dershowitz and Giuliani, keep trying to insert an alt-reality into Trump supporters, the rest of the legal pundit world all say it was a crime.

Politico: However, it’s also a crime to solicit a foreign national to give anything of value to a campaign, or even to "knowingly provide substantial assistance" in receiving something of value.

There's more at the link but you know that. This isn't new. You don't appear to have taken the time to check your facts.

 

[LSSBB]

Why bother to find my own source when your source supports my position and not yours?

Because, listen closely, it's not election law. It illustrates how oral transmission of trade secrets (note the word trade), can be considered the transmission of stolen property. If you want case law and legislation regarding election law, you'll have to do more homework.

 

[WilliamSeger]

If someone sent an email offering to sell the Trump campaign some dirt on Hillary, and the trumpers met with them to see if it was worth the asking price, would that dirt be a "thing of value" that could be legally purchased? I believe it would be. Why would it not be a thing of value if it's offered as a bribe, in exchange for sanctions relief instead of money?

 

[LSSBB]

If someone sent an email offering to sell the Trump campaign some dirt on Hillary, and the trumpers met with them to see if it was worth the asking price, would that dirt be a "thing of value" that could be legally purchased? I believe it would be. Why would it not be a thing of value if it's offered as a bribe, in exchange for sanctions relief instead of money?

A secret is a thing of value, in and of itself. It can give an advantage, that could otherwise have cost $$$ to obtain or caused $$$ in losses if it got out.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

They agreed to listen to the Russians. I don't see how you can criminalize listening.

That's your source? You don't see how? OK. Splains a lot.

 

[LSSBB]

That's your source? You don't see how? OK. Splains a lot.

As I said, defense by Dunning-Kruger.

 

[xjx388]

Wrong The moment they meet to discuss the acquisition of dirt from foregn nationals, they committed the crime. They demonstrated their agreement. Just because the Russians didn't deliver immediately doesn't mean there wasn't an agreement.

I don't think it's that simple. There is nothing illegal about meeting to discuss the acquisition of dirt form a foreign national. There may be a crime is in the details of the exchange, if it even occurred. We don't have those details.

I can agree to meet a woman in a hotel room for sex. If I get to the hotel room and she says, "I charge $500/hour," I don't have to accept those illegal terms. I can turn her down and not commit a crime. She might be guilty of solicitation but I am guilty of nothing except being stupid.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because, listen closely, it's not election law. It illustrates how oral transmission of trade secrets (note the word trade), can be considered the transmission of stolen property. If you want case law and legislation regarding election law, you'll have to do more homework.

First off, it isn't treated like the transmission of stolen property. It's treated quite differently. Second, the whole reason you brought up trade secrets is to try to justify the claim that you can criminalize listening. But as your own source proves, trade secrets laws do not criminalize just listening.

You were wrong, and now you're basically arguing that your example was irrelevant to begin with. Impressive.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I didn't see [have avoided looking at the links to] a primary legal source for the claim that merely listening can be a crime.

ftfy

This is the second installment in this thread topic, page 62, and said legal sources have been cited repeatedly. It would appear you simply aren't following the discussion.