It is a basic principle of American politics that the American government should be chosen by Americans, and not by any others. Clearly, it would be unpatriotic and/or distasteful for non-Americans to have a major role in this process.
But it is illegal?
All this talk about people in the Trump camp who may have had secret or not-so-secret meetings with various Russians last year… Exactly what are they being accused of? What laws might have been broken? A lot of what happened is unclear, and I’m not asking anyone to prove or disprove what went on. I’m only asking what MIGHT have happened, and what laws MIGHT have been broken.
Worst-case scenario: Someone close to Trump spoke personally with Putin, and told him, “If Trump wins, he will do such-and-such, which I know you want. So make some sort of speech that will make Hillary look bad, or influence the American voters to go with Trump, or something like that, okay?” What U.S. laws would that staffer have violated?
Trump Jr has already directly admitted via emails he released, that he THOUGHT he was meeting with a representative of the Russian Government, for the purpose of gaining information to help his father win election. The act of doing that is a crime, according to this article, and reading the quote from the law seems to support that.
Contributing information, donating information… I’m no lawyer. At this point Trump and his team aren’t being accused of breaking any specific law. There is an investigation that will decide some things, if Trump does not continue to impede it.
It’s the fact that being given the information means they don’t have to pay for the research to obtain the same information.
Election law is rather strict on what can be(and in what form) given to a campaign.
The same thing came up during the kerfluffle over Melania’s speech at the RNC.
The woman who wrote the speech did it while on the clock for The Trump Organization.
Which means the campaign didn’t pay for the time spent writing the speech therefore it was donated.
Thank you for your answers. I didn’t realize that donations were so strictly regulated. I had presumed that the allegations would be in the espionage and sleeping-with-the-enemy category.
I’m pretty sure that this exact thread has already come up and been moved. IIRC, Bricker was of the opinion that the act clearly violated the law as written, but that the law itself wouldn’t stand up to a First Amendment challenge, at least regarding the “donation” of information.
Just to be clear, the problem wouldn’t be with the fact that it was “donated,”
the problem is with it being “donated” by a foreign government.
From my own point of view, the bulk of the media people and the Democrats are focusing (as usual) on the wrong part of all this. It’s not the fact that the Russians tried (and apparently succeeded) in determining who the US President came to be, the problem is that Trump and company DON’T CARE that Russia may have decided the election, and want to completely ignore that (as well as other major problems involving Russia) in conducting foreign policy.
Similarly, the fact that numerous Trump team members lied repeatedly on security documents, while being a federal crime, isn’t nearly as important to deal with, as the fact that again, Trump doesn’t CARE about it.
It’s a bit of a reminder of certain previous Presidents who complained bitterly about leaks, and wanted leakers tried and imprisoned, but then leaked themselves, and directly endangered the lives of government personnel, for the sake of local political advantage.
Very disturbing.
The main reason why the Russia investigation MUST be completed, isn’t to catch and embarrass Trump people. It’s important because Russia appears to have conducted an entirely successful virtual invasion and conquest of the United States government , at many levels. And the President doesn’t appear to care, if anything, he has praised Putin for his actions.
Another issue is that a crime was committed … the DNC computers were hacked into … US Intelligence claims the Russian government was behind this crime …
Did The Donald or any of his campaign workers “materially participate” in this crime? … is there a cancelled check that Robert Mueller’s team might find? … the investigation continues …
ETA: According to NPR … The Donald Administration is flirting with obstruction of justice … any prosecutor is going through everybody’s involved financial records … we’ll see if this “red line” stands …
Hypothetical: A Trump operative overheard Hillary Clinton speaking to someone with a Canadian accent during a phone call. So Don Jr goes up to Toronto and visits the Prime Minister and asks “Did you have a conversation with Hillary Clinton and, if so, what was it about?” The Prime Minister says “Yes indeed. I got her to promise to remove the tariff on beaver pelts if she is elected.” The Trump campaign uses this information in TV ads and speeches.
So, a foreign government provides valuable information to a campaign for free.
Has a crime been committed in obtaining this information? If information from foreign sources is a valuable commodity that is prohibited by this law, does this law make it impossible to criticize certain foreign misdeeds committed by a political opponent?
Or, hypothetical: in 2016 the Clinton campaign learns that Trump is said to have sexually harrassed the contestants in the Miss Universe pageant he then owned. “Yes,” says Miss Universe 2014, Columbian citizen Paulina Vega. “He grabbed me and told me do it with him or else I wouldn’t win.”
The Clinton campaign publicizes this, mentions it during the presidential debates, and runs campaign ads featuring Vega recounting the assault.
The Dems thought they had a sure thing and were measuring for the new Oval Office curtains and then he won. That is his crime. All the rest is just noise and blah blah whatever they can make up.
Well obviously. Duh.
But when the clowns are tumbling and tossing on the sawdust at least the audience is being amused. At least in the basic meaning of being distracted.
I’m sure you are aware political jabs are not permitted in GQ, since you have several warnings for it already. This is another. If you persist in this you will find your posting privileges under discussion.
Even if the election laws weren’t violated, there’s still the possibility that a cover-up could itself be a crime, such as…
Denying that it happened, under oath … perjory.
Promising someone a job, a raise, or a promotion, in exchange for keeping their mouth shut … bribery.
Threatening to get an investigator fired … obstruction of justice.
Destroying evidence (even if the evidence wasn’t sufficient to make a conviction) … obstruction of justice.
and probably several more that I haven’t thought of.
I’m curious what it would take to get a conviction for fraud. I suspect that it’s pretty much impossible in the world of politics, unless it was something extreme like identity theft.
