June 22, 2018, 07:02:33 PM

Author Topic: When will Trump be impeached?  (Read 139819 times)

Offline Andy73

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #820 on: July 21, 2017, 05:58:32 AM »
Impeachment is a political act. Do left wingers actually thinking Republicans will vote for impeachment? It will never happen. He'll finish his term, and unless Democrats come up with a platform for 2020, he'll be re-elected.

This is the real crime:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
« Last Edit: July 21, 2017, 06:05:54 AM by Andy73 »

Online Adel

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Gender: Male
  • Pants down
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #821 on: July 21, 2017, 07:01:39 AM »
Impeachment is a political act. Do left wingers actually thinking Republicans will vote for impeachment? It will never happen. He'll finish his term, and unless Democrats come up with a platform for 2020, he'll be re-elected.



It's true that impeachment is a political act, and this may take some time but it would foolish to suggest that only 'left wingers' oppose Trump, further;

  • The 2018 United States House of Representatives elections will be held on November 6, 2018
  • While there are a majority of Republicans in Senate,Trump, after only six months, cannot form a majority to pass contentious legislation and his political capital is fading 

Offline kojinsing

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 131
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #822 on: July 21, 2017, 12:45:58 PM »
I am far from a Trump supporter, but I will not lie, I am enjoying everything he is going through.
Him and his family are miserable in that position and people really think he wants 8 years of this?! I doubt it.

Online Adel

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Gender: Male
  • Pants down
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #823 on: July 21, 2017, 01:08:44 PM »
Trump reviewing ways to pardon himself in Robert Mueller's Russia probe: Report

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-reviewing-ways-to-pardon-himself-in-robert-muellers-russia-probe-report/article/2629308

Hurry Hurry Hippos!

Online Mr.DeMartino

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4640
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #824 on: July 21, 2017, 01:21:44 PM »
Your logic and your example/allegation is trash, which you are obviously way into.

4 thumbs down gogators! After the Mendoza line-James Cameron gem this was weak.

Online Adel

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Gender: Male
  • Pants down
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #825 on: July 21, 2017, 02:01:06 PM »


Offline gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2749
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #827 on: July 21, 2017, 02:51:09 PM »
Your logic and your example/allegation is trash, which you are obviously way into.

4 thumbs down gogators! After the Mendoza line-James Cameron gem this was weak.
Facts can't be criticized.

Give back the two thumbs you begged, borrowed, or more likely, stole.

Offline elephantstrunk

  • Newgookin
  • Posts: 1
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #828 on: July 21, 2017, 04:57:05 PM »
I am starting to think Trump supporters are starting to live in an echo chamber of their own.

A "Made in America" echo chamber powered by coal.

Lvin'n my echo chamber. Where's my PEPE meme.

Online donovan

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
  • 후레쉬
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #829 on: July 22, 2017, 12:01:23 PM »
This is all very confusing.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/us/politics/sean-spicer-resigns-as-white-house-press-secretary.html

It's so vaguely worded. Is Spicer quitting his job or signing again???

Online Adel

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Gender: Male
  • Pants down
Hurry, Hurry Hippos!
« Reply #830 on: July 22, 2017, 01:16:44 PM »
This is all very confusing.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/us/politics/sean-spicer-resigns-as-white-house-press-secretary.html

It's so vaguely worded. Is Spicer quitting his job or signing again???
Pizdets! A victim of the relentless campaign by the fake news media. Zhopa.

Offline gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2749
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #831 on: July 22, 2017, 02:44:49 PM »
Spicer's history. Planned on doing the job for one year, but six months of trump's guff was more than enough.

Smart move, IMO.

Online Savant

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1269
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #832 on: July 22, 2017, 03:20:43 PM »
Spicer's history. Planned on doing the job for one year, but six months of trump's guff was more than enough.

Smart move, IMO.

Damn! SNL missing a great character.

Offline eastreef

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
  • Gender: Male
Re: Just a matter of time
« Reply #833 on: July 22, 2017, 04:34:40 PM »
Quote
eastreef

I guess I don’t understand what you mean by accepting something of “value” from a foreign national?  Can you please define “value”, as you are using it? 


Yes it's quite clear there are numbers of things you don't quite understand, not least of which is the meaning of an 'aside', but since you went to so much trouble I can't help but feel a sense of obligation to clarify.

Those were some cute examples you provided but not one of them were instances of individuals campaigning for president of the United States,

Sorry I couldn’t get back to you sooner, but work has been busy.  Work pays the bills – Waygook is just a hobby…..

Actually, my examples were first meant to point out some interesting ramifications if the U.S. government were to officially declare that “sourced” information has monetary value; however,  they were also meant to make light of the fake shock and outrage that Democrats/Elitists/Leftists are trying to sell.  My Korean examples have just as much in common with U.S. presidential campaign finance laws as the motivation behind this fake shock and outrage about Jr.  This is all about trying to find another avenue to overthrow overturn the election. 

Let us see if I understand things better now.  To make it easier, let us call this subject the Jr. Rule. 

I completely understand that many of the people who are promulgating this new rule view the Jr. Rule in the same manner as they view the “Russian” investigation as a whole; in that this investigation is not intended to look at all aspects of what went on with the “Russians,” it is just supposed to provide dirt on Trump.  It really doesn’t matter if it is the “Russians” or the “Luxembourgers,” just as long as it helps to overthrow overturn the election.   If it can’t help in their objective, then the issue is not relevant to them.

What I want to know is how the Democrats, much of the media and others keep a straight face when they act so outraged and shocked about a campaign trying to dig up dirt on the opposition candidate? 

Yes, Jr. and the others were stupid and naïve and should be fired or sent to the mailroom at the Trump Tower, but the Democrats being shocked and outraged about digging up dirt, even from another country???  The Democrats do the same thing but are not naïve and are smarter than Jr.    A couple quick examples are below.  I know, I know: how dare I talk about anyone but Trump.  Before Trump American presidential politics was so pure, unadulterated, wholesome and uplifting …..

1.  The Ukrainian government in 2016 was pro-Clinton. 

Quote
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office.

The DNC employed a staff member, who then became a consultant, who likely solicited damaging information from the Ukrainian Embassy on Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager as of June 2016. According to a January investigation by Politico, Alexandra Chalupa, who was reportedly hired by the DNC for outreach purposes, was independently researching the connections between Manafort, Viktor Yanukovych’s Ukrainian government and Russian interests.

Sometimes, according to Chalupa, she shared her findings with the DNC and with the Clinton campaign. Chalupa “traded” information with staff at the Ukrainian Embassy, and once, with the DNC’s encouragement, attempted to set up an interview with current Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko so he could describe Manafort’s relationship with Yanukovych. (The embassy declined this request.)…

Chalupa planned to share her Manafort dirt, including “a big Trump component,” according to a leaked email, with the DNC, although the DNC says she was a consultant paid for outreach and that she investigated Manafort on her own.
The DNC did not return a request from IBT for comment. IBT was unable to reach Chalupa with questions. The DNC told Politico that it did not incorporate Chalupa’s findings in its dossier on Trump, Manafort and Russia.

Without complete information, it’s impossible to know whether Ukrainian nationals, Chalupa, the DNC and/or the Clinton campaign broke campaign finance laws, although that is a possibility.                       

What information, if any, was shared?  We don’t really know.  It’s too bad that the media is not interested in the subject of whether a foreign country and an American campaign worked together to get dirt on the opposition……. If they were maybe we could learn about what really happened……

2.  In another post I mentioned how the Democrats like to hire Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on the Republicans, as they did in 2012 when they hired Fusion GPS do find dirt on Romney, and again in 2016 when they hired Fusion GPS to find dirt on Trump. 

An aside:
Fusion GPS also does work for the “Russians” and is under investigation by the senate for possibly violating FARA.  Furthermore, the founder of Fusion GPS – Glenn Simpson

Quote
  Glenn Simpson's lawyer said he is on vacation and traveling overseas through early August, prompting Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein to compel his attendance. The senators said Simpson’s attorney has asserted that his client will invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in response to the subpoena.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/21/donald-trump-jr-paul-manafort-chuck-grassley-testify-russia-240815                     

An aside:

Fusion GPS – Anti-Trump Research -- Democrats – Russia   
I can create conspiracies too.  I just don’t have a cable news network or newspaper to run these kind of headlines…..

Anyways, Fusion GPS hired a foreign national -- former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele – to dig up dirt on Trump and he came up with the infamous Trump-Russia dossier. 

Quote
Initially, an unnamed Republican supporter hired a firm called Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Trump during the Republican primary election. Once Trump became the presumptive GOP nominee for president, that Republican stopped paying the firm, but some pro-Clinton Democrats — not the DNC or the Clinton campaign — began picking up the tab for more opposition research. Around that time, the firm enlisted Steele to conduct the research.

Unlike the dirt that Trump Jr. hoped to glean from the Russian lawyer, Steele’s intel was paid research and it was conducted for private citizens and not political groups or campaigns (although who commissioned the research is legally irrelevant in this case). There is nothing illegal in this scenario.               

Yes, the Democrats are smarter than Jr. in this regard…….  But, shocked?

Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?

Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.

Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
[aloud]

Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

Quote
Donald Trump Jr. May Have Broken Campaign Finance Laws. Did Clinton Backers Do The Same?
BY ALEX KOTCH ON 07/13/17 AT 4:35 PM

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/donald-trump-jr-may-have-broken-campaign-finance-laws-did-clinton-backers-do-same

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
             



“All of this has happened before, and will happen again.”

Offline eastreef

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
  • Gender: Male
Re: Just a matter of time
« Reply #834 on: July 22, 2017, 05:16:14 PM »
Quote
eastreef

I guess I don’t understand what you mean by accepting something of “value” from a foreign national?  Can you please define “value”, as you are using it? 


which is 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510 — the law governing foreign contributions to US campaigns.

Perhaps you might like to read up the relevant statute and get back to me if you require any more clarification.

Here's a link https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20


Okay, let us talk presidential campaign finance laws. 

An aside:
I had already looked at your Cornell link before I made my first post.

Because people who are against this organized effort to overthrow overturn the election seem to be held to a higher credibility standard than the anti-Trump people, I’ll first provide some background information on my first legal expert.  And, based on this info I get the impression – though not completely sure – that he did not support Trump for president. 

BTW, at the end I also included a link to a recognized First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh -- maybe not classified as a liberal – who believes that if the Jr. Rule was actually applied it will violate the First Amendment (he interprets “thing of value” to exclude such information.)

Some background on my first legal expert.
Daniel P. Tokaji

CV:   http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty-old/cv/tokaji_daniel.pdf

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty/professor/daniel-p-tokaji/

1.  He was lead counsel in a case that struck down an Ohio law requiring naturalized citizens to produce a certificate of naturalization when challenged at the polls.
2.  He definitely was not thrilled when Trump appointed Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
3.  He approved of the Supreme Court decision to support the use of an independent commission to draw Congressional district lines – a move meant to reduce the gerrymandering of districts.
4.  He was a Staff Attorney with the the Southern California -- American Civil Liberties Union -- and involved in a lawsuit against the LAPD.  The A.C.L.U. wants to stop what it calls harassment and intimidation of people……………

If you read the entire article that I have linked you will definitely see that Tokaji is not defending Jr.  What he does in the article is methodically go through presidential campaign finance laws in relation to Jr.’s action. 

Some of his comments follow, but first an aside:

Note his comments about how it would raise serious constitutional concerns if all potentially valuable information were deemed a contribution, and then my first post about the ramifications if the U.S. government officially declared that “sourced” information had a monetary value.

Quote
I don’t think federal campaign finance law prohibits what Trump Jr. did.  If it did, then the Clinton campaign would also have broken the law had it sought information from non-U.S. nationals to investigate the claim that Trump Tower was built with undocumented workers.  That interpretation of the law would raise very serious concerns concerning the free flow of political information.

My claim is that construing the solicitation ban so broadly as to encompass all attempts at information-seeking from foreign nationals would raise serious constitutional problems.
 
But it would raise serious constitutional concerns if all potentially valuable information were deemed a contribution. 

My tentative answer is that the ban on in-kind contributions should be understood to reach the sorts of campaign commodities that have a determinate monetary value in the marketplace.  This isn’t a bright line, but it’s one that reconciles the competing values in play.

Focusing on items with a determinate value is consistent with the central purpose of campaign finance regulation:  to keep money from being transformed into political influence. …..                       

He has authored books on U.S. election laws and including campaign finance.

Quote
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty/professor/daniel-p-tokaji/

The first edition of Election Law was the first modern casebook on the subject of election law…..

The streamlined and student-friendly fifth edition of Election Law fully covers developments in election law in the 2012 election season including: extensive coverage of Citizens United, super PACs, and other campaign finance developments; emerging issues in voting rights and redistricting, including coverage of the Texas redistricting and voter identification cases; and new coverage of issues in judicial elections. It will continue to include perspectives from law and political science, and is appropriate in both law and political science courses. The extensive campaign finance coverage makes the book appropriate for a campaign finance seminar as well.

Professor Tokaji is the author of Election Law in a Nutshell (2013), and co-author of Election Law: Cases and Materials (5th ed. 2012) and The New Soft Money (2014).  He has written numerous articles and book chapters on a wide variety of election and voting issues, including voter ID, voter registration, voting technology, provisional voting, redistricting, campaign finance regulation, ……                       

Below is the article and more excerpts.  He even provides a Supreme Court decision – the Bluman Decision -- to support his opinion -- The big question is whether information-sharing should be considered a contribution.  Bluman suggests that it shouldn’t....   

You should read the entire article.

Quote
By Daniel P. Tokaji
What Trump Jr. Did Was Bad, But It Probably Didn’t Violate Federal Campaign Finance Law

Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:46 AM

https://www.justsecurity.org/43116/trump-jr-bad-didnt-violate-federal-campaign-finance-law/

The disclosure of emails documenting Donald Trump, Jr.’s arrangement of a meeting with Natalia Veselnitskay has lots of people asking whether he or the Trump campaign violated federal campaign finance law.  The pivotal question is whether they illegally solicited an in-kind contribution from a foreign national by attempting to get dirt on Hillary Clinton from a Russian national, including incriminating documents.

Although some outstanding lawyers contend otherwise, I don’t think federal campaign finance law prohibits what Trump Jr. did.  If it did, then the Clinton campaign would also have broken the law had it sought information from non-U.S. nationals to investigate the claim that Trump Tower was built with undocumented workers.  That interpretation of the law would raise very serious concerns concerning the free flow of political information.

The better view is that meeting with a foreign national to obtain information on a rival doesn’t generally violate federal campaign finance law, at least not without more.  A different analysis should apply when items with a demonstrable monetary value are given or sought, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here given the vague description of the information offered to Trump Jr.

Trump Jr. certainly appears to have been soliciting something from a foreign national, but was it a contribution?  ……..”  52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(a) (emphasis added).  The italicized portion thus includes what are commonly referred to as in-kind contributions:  things of value that someone might give in lieu of money, typically to evade the restrictions on campaign contributions.

It looks like the Trump campaign was trying to get something of value – specifically, damaging information on his opponent – from a foreign national.  …… And Common Cause has filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission and Special Prosecutor’s Office, claiming that Trump Jr. and the Trump illegally solicited an in-kind contribution from a foreign national.

The critical legal question is whether the information that Trump Jr. sought from Veselnitskay was an in-kind contribution.

Is Information a Contribution? T

That said, information might be deemed an in-kind contribution in some circumstances.   As Rick Hasen notes, the FEC has previously determined that polling data, election materials from previous campaigns, and contact lists of activists can be in-kind contributions.  It’s easy to see why:  if these types of things weren’t considered in-kind contributions, then it would be really easy to skirt federal campaign finance law.  All of these things have “substantial market value” (as the FEC’s General Counsel put it) to election campaigns…. 

On the other hand, there’s judicial precedent that appears to understand the foreign contributions ban as limited to monetary donations.   In Bluman v. FEC, the federal district court in D.C. upheld the ban against a constitutional challenge, in a decision that was later affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The district court emphasized the narrow scope of the statute, saying that it “does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues” but only prevents them from “providing money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.”  At the end of its opinion, the court expressly reserved the question whether a broader restriction on foreign nationals’ speech would be permissible…….

If it turns out that the Trump Jr. and Venelnitskay coordinated on express advocacy expenditures – for example, communications specifically advocating the election of his father – that would be one thing.  But the emails don’t prove that.  The big question is whether information-sharing should be considered a contribution.  Bluman suggests that it shouldn’t

This brings us to the most important reason why federal law shouldn’t be construed to prohibit Trump Jr.’s attempt to obtain information from Veselnitskay.  While there’s no doubt that the dirt Trump Jr. was seeking could potentially have had value to his father’s campaign, it would seriously restrict the  flow of political information if campaigns were prohibited even from speaking foreign nationals in pursuit of information about  their opponents…..   

Denying candidates the opportunity to interview foreign nationals would thus be detrimental to the central First Amendment interest in the free flow of political information.   One example is the hypothetical mentioned at the start of this post, the Clinton campaign seeking information from undocumented immigrants allegedly used to build Trump Towers).   We can also imagine comparable attempts to obtain information in congressional races.    Suppose for example that a House candidate gets a tip that her opponent’s business is violating the wage and hour restrictions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, by underpaying undocumented workers.  If her campaign staff interviews those workers, it would be violating federal campaign finance law.  That simply can’t be the law, not without chilling candidates’ investigations of their opponents and compromising the core constitutional interest in an informed electorate.

To be clear, my claim isn’t that Trump Jr. had a constitutional right to do what he did. …….  My claim is that construing the solicitation ban so broadly as to encompass all attempts at information-seeking from foreign nationals would raise serious constitutional problems. 

As Eugene Volokh notes, laws that are substantially overbroad in restricting speech are struck down on their face, even if they could constitutionally be applied in the case at hand.  Federal campaign finance law should thus be read in a way that will avoid that outcome.

All of this reveals a conundrum at the heart of the ban on foreign nationals’ contributions.    There are strong reasons to treat information as an in-kind contribution in some circumstances, as when costly polling data is given to a candidate for free.  But it would raise serious constitutional concerns if all potentially valuable information were deemed a contribution. 

My tentative answer is that the ban on in-kind contributions should be understood to reach the sorts of campaign commodities that have a determinate monetary value in the marketplace.  This isn’t a bright line, but it’s one that reconciles the competing values in play.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/14/the-strikingly-broad-consequences-of-the-argument-that-donald-trump-jr-broke-the-law-by-expressing-interest-in-russian-dirt-on-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.6073f12568ad#comments

Eugene Volokh : As I argued Wednesday, though, reading “thing of value” to include such politically damaging information would outlaw a broad range of constitutionally protected opposition research. Such a reading would therefore make the statute unconstitutionally overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment; the statute must therefore be read to avoid such an unconstitutional result, by interpreting “thing of value” to exclude such information.


                     



“All of this has happened before, and will happen again.”

Offline eastreef

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #835 on: July 22, 2017, 05:18:18 PM »
Eastreef's posts are almost as sad as Ulsan's increasingly desperate attempts to portray itself as some kind of hip and relaxing tropical destination rather than a bunch of rusting factories that make the whole city smell like chemicals.

Sorry I couldn’t get back to you sooner, but work has been busy.  Work pays the bills, and Waygook is just a hobby…..

Link(s) please.
“All of this has happened before, and will happen again.”

Online Adel

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Gender: Male
  • Pants down
Re: Just a matter of time
« Reply #836 on: July 22, 2017, 06:46:23 PM »
Quote
eastreef

I guess I don’t understand what you mean by accepting something of “value” from a foreign national?  Can you please define “value”, as you are using it? 


which is 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510 — the law governing foreign contributions to US campaigns.

Perhaps you might like to read up the relevant statute and get back to me if you require any more clarification.

Here's a link https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20


Okay, let us talk presidential campaign finance laws. 

An aside:
I had already looked at your Cornell link before I made my first post.

Because people who are against this organized effort to overthrow overturn the election seem to be held to a higher credibility standard than the anti-Trump people, I’ll first provide some background information on my first legal expert.  And, based on this info I get the impression – though not completely sure – that he did not support Trump for president. 

BTW, at the end I also included a link to a recognized First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh -- maybe not classified as a liberal – who believes that if the Jr. Rule was actually applied it will violate the First Amendment (he interprets “thing of value” to exclude such information.)

Some background on my first legal expert.
Daniel P. Tokaji

CV:   http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty-old/cv/tokaji_daniel.pdf

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty/professor/daniel-p-tokaji/

1.  He was lead counsel in a case that struck down an Ohio law requiring naturalized citizens to produce a certificate of naturalization when challenged at the polls.
2.  He definitely was not thrilled when Trump appointed Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
3.  He approved of the Supreme Court decision to support the use of an independent commission to draw Congressional district lines – a move meant to reduce the gerrymandering of districts.
4.  He was a Staff Attorney with the the Southern California -- American Civil Liberties Union -- and involved in a lawsuit against the LAPD.  The A.C.L.U. wants to stop what it calls harassment and intimidation of people……………

If you read the entire article that I have linked you will definitely see that Tokaji is not defending Jr.  What he does in the article is methodically go through presidential campaign finance laws in relation to Jr.’s action. 

Some of his comments follow, but first an aside:

Note his comments about how it would raise serious constitutional concerns if all potentially valuable information were deemed a contribution, and then my first post about the ramifications if the U.S. government officially declared that “sourced” information had a monetary value.

Quote
I don’t think federal campaign finance law prohibits what Trump Jr. did.  If it did, then the Clinton campaign would also have broken the law had it sought information from non-U.S. nationals to investigate the claim that Trump Tower was built with undocumented workers.  That interpretation of the law would raise very serious concerns concerning the free flow of political information.

My claim is that construing the solicitation ban so broadly as to encompass all attempts at information-seeking from foreign nationals would raise serious constitutional problems.
 
But it would raise serious constitutional concerns if all potentially valuable information were deemed a contribution. 

My tentative answer is that the ban on in-kind contributions should be understood to reach the sorts of campaign commodities that have a determinate monetary value in the marketplace.  This isn’t a bright line, but it’s one that reconciles the competing values in play.

Focusing on items with a determinate value is consistent with the central purpose of campaign finance regulation:  to keep money from being transformed into political influence. …..                       

He has authored books on U.S. election laws and including campaign finance.

Quote
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty/professor/daniel-p-tokaji/

The first edition of Election Law was the first modern casebook on the subject of election law…..

The streamlined and student-friendly fifth edition of Election Law fully covers developments in election law in the 2012 election season including: extensive coverage of Citizens United, super PACs, and other campaign finance developments; emerging issues in voting rights and redistricting, including coverage of the Texas redistricting and voter identification cases; and new coverage of issues in judicial elections. It will continue to include perspectives from law and political science, and is appropriate in both law and political science courses. The extensive campaign finance coverage makes the book appropriate for a campaign finance seminar as well.

Professor Tokaji is the author of Election Law in a Nutshell (2013), and co-author of Election Law: Cases and Materials (5th ed. 2012) and The New Soft Money (2014).  He has written numerous articles and book chapters on a wide variety of election and voting issues, including voter ID, voter registration, voting technology, provisional voting, redistricting, campaign finance regulation, ……                       

Below is the article and more excerpts.  He even provides a Supreme Court decision – the Bluman Decision -- to support his opinion -- The big question is whether information-sharing should be considered a contribution.  Bluman suggests that it shouldn’t....   

You should read the entire article.

Quote
By Daniel P. Tokaji
What Trump Jr. Did Was Bad, But It Probably Didn’t Violate Federal Campaign Finance Law

Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:46 AM

https://www.justsecurity.org/43116/trump-jr-bad-didnt-violate-federal-campaign-finance-law/

The disclosure of emails documenting Donald Trump, Jr.’s arrangement of a meeting with Natalia Veselnitskay has lots of people asking whether he or the Trump campaign violated federal campaign finance law.  The pivotal question is whether they illegally solicited an in-kind contribution from a foreign national by attempting to get dirt on Hillary Clinton from a Russian national, including incriminating documents.

Although some outstanding lawyers contend otherwise, I don’t think federal campaign finance law prohibits what Trump Jr. did.  If it did, then the Clinton campaign would also have broken the law had it sought information from non-U.S. nationals to investigate the claim that Trump Tower was built with undocumented workers.  That interpretation of the law would raise very serious concerns concerning the free flow of political information.

The better view is that meeting with a foreign national to obtain information on a rival doesn’t generally violate federal campaign finance law, at least not without more.  A different analysis should apply when items with a demonstrable monetary value are given or sought, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here given the vague description of the information offered to Trump Jr.

Trump Jr. certainly appears to have been soliciting something from a foreign national, but was it a contribution?  ……..”  52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(a) (emphasis added).  The italicized portion thus includes what are commonly referred to as in-kind contributions:  things of value that someone might give in lieu of money, typically to evade the restrictions on campaign contributions.

It looks like the Trump campaign was trying to get something of value – specifically, damaging information on his opponent – from a foreign national.  …… And Common Cause has filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission and Special Prosecutor’s Office, claiming that Trump Jr. and the Trump illegally solicited an in-kind contribution from a foreign national.

The critical legal question is whether the information that Trump Jr. sought from Veselnitskay was an in-kind contribution.

Is Information a Contribution? T

That said, information might be deemed an in-kind contribution in some circumstances.   As Rick Hasen notes, the FEC has previously determined that polling data, election materials from previous campaigns, and contact lists of activists can be in-kind contributions.  It’s easy to see why:  if these types of things weren’t considered in-kind contributions, then it would be really easy to skirt federal campaign finance law.  All of these things have “substantial market value” (as the FEC’s General Counsel put it) to election campaigns…. 

On the other hand, there’s judicial precedent that appears to understand the foreign contributions ban as limited to monetary donations.   In Bluman v. FEC, the federal district court in D.C. upheld the ban against a constitutional challenge, in a decision that was later affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The district court emphasized the narrow scope of the statute, saying that it “does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues” but only prevents them from “providing money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.”  At the end of its opinion, the court expressly reserved the question whether a broader restriction on foreign nationals’ speech would be permissible…….

If it turns out that the Trump Jr. and Venelnitskay coordinated on express advocacy expenditures – for example, communications specifically advocating the election of his father – that would be one thing.  But the emails don’t prove that.  The big question is whether information-sharing should be considered a contribution.  Bluman suggests that it shouldn’t

This brings us to the most important reason why federal law shouldn’t be construed to prohibit Trump Jr.’s attempt to obtain information from Veselnitskay.  While there’s no doubt that the dirt Trump Jr. was seeking could potentially have had value to his father’s campaign, it would seriously restrict the  flow of political information if campaigns were prohibited even from speaking foreign nationals in pursuit of information about  their opponents…..   

Denying candidates the opportunity to interview foreign nationals would thus be detrimental to the central First Amendment interest in the free flow of political information.   One example is the hypothetical mentioned at the start of this post, the Clinton campaign seeking information from undocumented immigrants allegedly used to build Trump Towers).   We can also imagine comparable attempts to obtain information in congressional races.    Suppose for example that a House candidate gets a tip that her opponent’s business is violating the wage and hour restrictions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, by underpaying undocumented workers.  If her campaign staff interviews those workers, it would be violating federal campaign finance law.  That simply can’t be the law, not without chilling candidates’ investigations of their opponents and compromising the core constitutional interest in an informed electorate.

To be clear, my claim isn’t that Trump Jr. had a constitutional right to do what he did. …….  My claim is that construing the solicitation ban so broadly as to encompass all attempts at information-seeking from foreign nationals would raise serious constitutional problems. 

As Eugene Volokh notes, laws that are substantially overbroad in restricting speech are struck down on their face, even if they could constitutionally be applied in the case at hand.  Federal campaign finance law should thus be read in a way that will avoid that outcome.

All of this reveals a conundrum at the heart of the ban on foreign nationals’ contributions.    There are strong reasons to treat information as an in-kind contribution in some circumstances, as when costly polling data is given to a candidate for free.  But it would raise serious constitutional concerns if all potentially valuable information were deemed a contribution. 

My tentative answer is that the ban on in-kind contributions should be understood to reach the sorts of campaign commodities that have a determinate monetary value in the marketplace.  This isn’t a bright line, but it’s one that reconciles the competing values in play.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/14/the-strikingly-broad-consequences-of-the-argument-that-donald-trump-jr-broke-the-law-by-expressing-interest-in-russian-dirt-on-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.6073f12568ad#comments

Eugene Volokh : As I argued Wednesday, though, reading “thing of value” to include such politically damaging information would outlaw a broad range of constitutionally protected opposition research. Such a reading would therefore make the statute unconstitutionally overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment; the statute must therefore be read to avoid such an unconstitutional result, by interpreting “thing of value” to exclude such information.


                     

So now that you've spent about a week, three posts and several pages dealing with which was not originally of interest, nor being addressed in the post to which I had commented, perhaps you would like to concentrate your response on the point which was not an aside.
Here's a refresher, with the pertinent content in bold

Quote
Aside from the legality of soliciting or accepting anything of value from a foreign national, there is the fact that Donald Trump senior has repeatedly said that he has nothing to do with the Russians and that any talk of collusion is phony. No amount of diversionary tactics will obscure this fact.  When Trump eventually has to testify under oath his habitual lies will become perjury. The systems of checks and balances, for which Trump shows so much disdain, will prevail.

This investigation will take time and I suspect, as do others, that there is a lot more still to be revealed.

Please spare us all the endless Sir Redmond Herring type spiel. It does nothing to improve the credibility of your posts, nor to further the discussion.

Trump’s Russian Laundromat


https://newrepublic.com/article/143586/trumps-russian-laundromat-trump-tower-luxury-high-rises-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate
« Last Edit: July 23, 2017, 06:33:13 AM by Adel »

Online donovan

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
  • 후레쉬
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #837 on: July 23, 2017, 09:23:57 AM »
'Trump Says He Has "Complete Power" to Pardon'

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-jeff-sessions.html

I wonder if he sees this power as extending to foreign entities as well?

'Congress Reaches Deal on Russia Sanctions, Setting Up Tough Choice for Trump'

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/congress-sanctions-russia.html

Online Adel

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Gender: Male
  • Pants down
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #838 on: July 24, 2017, 06:30:29 AM »
Looks like Trump is doing the ground work to get rid of Sessions so he can be replaced with someone who will fire Mueller.
Trump seems to be very concerned about Mueller looking into his Russian laundromat.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/22/donald-trump-twitter-russia-washington-post-jeff-sessions

It's a shame James Gandolfini isn't still around. He would've been an ideal replacement for Sessions.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2017, 06:55:22 AM by Adel »

Online Savant

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1269
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #839 on: July 26, 2017, 09:53:22 PM »
That support and love he has for the LGBT community didn't last then:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politics/trump-military-transgender/index.html

"After consultation with my Generals and military experts..."

Hahaha! Trump consults with people, really?

Just another distraction to move the Russia/TrumpCare news off the day's headlines.

 



Ohmyzip.com From US To Korea - $7.50 (LB)
[SHOP US, SHIP KOREA] From $7.50 (1LB) + $1.74 per pound only! Use the Ohmyzip U.S. a tax-free state address as your shipping address at checkout. Sign up now to get a 10% off coupon on shipping. <Freight Forwarding Service / Courier Service>
http://www.ohmyzip.com/