You seem incapable of grasping the distinction between procuring the information and using the information. The Trump campaign coordinated with bad actors and used the information.
No one knows when they ask for opposition research to be done what they will get. It’s what you do with the information that makes your choices either legal or not legal.
I’m quite capable of grasping that distinction. What’s unclear is whether that distinction is at all relevant here.
Also unclear is whether you have the slightest clue as to what you’re talking about, whether about the law or the facts. I’m skeptical.
By all means, please feel free to offer evidence of anywhere my reasoning or factual data are lacking. We’ve all been waiting a long time.
First write a coherent post, with some basis for your factual and legal assertions.
LOL, I’ll let that post stand for its own credibility. 
Isn’t the law in question about donations from foreign entities? The dossier was paid for by several campaigns and the FBI. The dossier was therefore not donated to either campaign or to the FBI. I have not seen any contention that the Trump campaign was offered dirt on Clinton in return for money. They were offered a donation of said dirt.
It was paid for by the Clinton campaign, not “several campaigns”. (I don’t know about the FBI.)
Steele was paid, but it’s not clear that the Russians who provided him with info were paid. (Some have claimed they were, but IIRC Steele himself claims they weren’t. Most likely some were and some weren’t.) So if you buy the notion that info is a thing of value for this purpose, then the DNC/Clinton campaign hired someone (Steele) to solicit a thing of value (information) from foreigners (the Russians who Steele got his info from).
…In exchange for the lifting of sanctions under the Magnitsky Act. For which there exists evidence that the Trump campaign was attempting to comply, over the concerns of his own party, by influencing the Republican platform and doing everything he could to make that happen. You must understand that’s why Congress voted in overwhelming numbers to stay any attempt by Trump to unilaterally lift those Russian sanctions. To lift them is contrary to American interests, even by an assessment of Trump’s own party.
I don’t personally understand how anyone can make a cogent argument that the information offered by Russia to the Trump campaign, or that the lifting of the Magnitsky Act sanctions, were not things of immense value to each party in the negotiation. Neither may present a value that can be easily measured in monetary terms, but it’s a bald quid pro quo, as BobLibDem clearly stated, and each party had staked a value to those things.
Whether the value of information has or has not been established in prior interpretations of whatever law we’re discussing – because that’s not clear – is not the issue. Some people in this thread are discussing the Logan Act, which may or may not have anything to do with crimes associated with a conspiracy between parties to do a quid pro quo as I and others have outlined. But a quid pro quo most assuredly falls within the meaning of a conspiracy to defraud the United States of a fair election.
The Logan Act has to do with parties taking actions to negotiate with foreign agents outside their authority to do so, and it might apply. In reference to the Logan Act specifically, I think it can be argued that the actions of Mike Flynn and his son to promise Turkey’s Erdogan that they would rendition an American citizen to Turkey might certainly fall under violations of the Logan Act – and a fair few others, too, like conspiracy to commit a straight-up kidnapping. I also happen to think that Trump or anyone on behalf of his campaign making promises to Putin prior to his election to the office of President (if that can be clearly established) that sanctions would be lifted, would be a definite violation of the Logan Act, because it is entirely opposite to the goals of the Obama Administration at a time when Trump or members of his campaign staff had no authority to enter into such negotiations. The continuous efforts to set up meetings between Putin, Russian cutouts and Trump or his agents, does not bode well for any of those Americans involved.
I would point out that it doesn’t matter if either side achieved their objectives. It’s the intent to do it that defines the criminality of the act. That’s going to apply to a lot of the indictments that flow from this mess, I believe.
It was my understanding that the actual firm hired by both the republican who started the investigation and the Clinton campaign was an American company called Fusion GPS, who then sub-contracted out to a UK citizen (Steele).
I may be wrong on that, but if I am correct, does that affect the argument that they received information from foreigners since they hired a domestic company for the information?
How about if you hire an American company to solicit campaign funds from foreigners?
Hard to imagine that this would fly. But if you buy that information is the same thing as funds for this purpose then that’s essentially what you’re arguing.
[FWIW, it appears that Steele was hired to do the dossier work after the Democrats took over the case. But this is not germane here, I would think.]
The Dossier is only a road map that the FBI has been using to help w/ their own investigation anyway. Focusing so much on it and who paid for what or why is a purposeful diversion. Steele himself just said that he believes the information in the dossier to be between 70-90% accurate. Even if it’s only 20% accurate, it spells big trouble for a lot of people.
This is about a whole lot more than “opposition research”. This is about quid pro quos to get sanctions lifted in possible exchange for a piece of the oil money. Not just to help Trump get elected. In fact that was likely an unintended outcome of the whole endeavor.
Now I’ll grant that I would prefer that the FBI investigate and report on candidates before they are turned into Presidents, since that removes all the false news from the equation and allows investigating the person’s persons’ finances and stuff using government access, but there’s a significant difference between hiring an American investigation agency or even a foreign detective agency.
The worry of the law, as stated, is that the incoming President will be beholden to the government of a foreign nation. If I pay an investigation firm, then all of the information is already paid for. There’s no debt to the foreign power.
And you’ll note that the law doesn’t block purchasing things of value from foreign nations. You can buy a Mercedes to go through downtown New York and blare your campaign’s theme song. The fact that Mercedes is a German company is irrelevant because they didn’t donate the Mercedes nor trade it for some future good favor. It was a straight cash deal, for the full monetary value of the vehicle. and there’s nothing more that can come into effect down the road when the candidate becomes the President.
As I noted before, Steele claims he did not pay his sources. Here’s a random cite: http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/15/politics/russia-investigation-fusion-gps-glenn-simpson-dossier/index.html
If that’s correct, then the DNC was essentially soliciting things of value from foreign sources via an agent.
Nope. Not even close.
Is being as dumb as you are kind of like being high all the time? I don’t know why I’m asking. There’s no way for you to know.
The lack of substance in your post typifies your contributions to this board. Any 5 year old can call people dumb. To actually contribute something of value is much harder. I guess you do what you can.
Unless he was sending the DNC messages back saying that he’d promised his sources a favor from Clinton in the future, I’m not seeing how that’s an issue. I would expect that his sources talked to him because they were friendly.
Is that what you think you’re doing?
Dumb or high? I still can’t tell. Maybe a healthy mix.
OK, but it sounds like your position is that it violates the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law? Because I don’t think the law distinguishes based on whether favors were promised or not.
Ah, the old “I know you are but what am I” defense.
As I said before, any five year old …
Subpoenas issues to more than a dozen top Trump officials. https://www.wsj.com/articles/special-counsel-mueller-issued-subpoena-for-russia-related-documents-from-trump-campaign-officials-1510875492
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not today. This happened back in October.
Got goose pimples for a second.