In the hypothetical, she made no statement until questioned by a campaign staffer.
:smack:
If I understand correctly -
If a foreign entity did opposition research on a US candidate (no hacking, just research of public records) and publicly released that information, then no US law has been broken.
But if that entity gave that information to the other candidate’s campaign, then that would be an illegal campaign contribution. And rightly so, because the campaign is now indebted to a foreign entity.
Is that correct?
No. I argue that this interpretation violates the First Amendment.
So what the actual penalties they would receive if convicted. It seems to me that the letter of the law was violated, but is this a slap on wrist sort of thing, or something more severe?
A quick google was pretty vague: possible imprisonment and/or fines.
When it comes to impeachment, it is whatever Congress decides is a high crime or misdemeanor.
Could you point to that argument or reiterate it here?
The argument is simple: Conveying information to another is speech, which is protected under the First Amendment. And conveying information about the purported misdeeds of a politician is political speech, which is the form of speech most protected under the First Amendment.
Now, there is some dispute with this argument, particularly on the point of whether the First Amendment applies to speech by a non-citizen. I don’t know which way a court would rule. But the argument itself is fairly simple.
The way I see it, the First Amendment protects the speaker, which would be the Russians, not those who receive the information, which would be the Trumps.
The crime is not the conveying of the information. The crime is whatever payment is given/owed in return.
The problem is that having (allegedly) received information from the Russians, we now have a president who is indebted to them and can no longer be trusted to act in the American citizens’ best interests.
Fascinating …
I’ve yarded up a rather old page from FEC “Foreign Nationals” – July 2003:
This seems to indicate that the Russians aren’t allowed to give money to the Trump campaign … but your argument is that any speech the Russians give is protected when used by American citizens …
Let me guess … case law is thin in this matter?
Given that this appears to be an unsettled area of law, let’s move this to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
You are entirely incorrect. The First Amendment does not apply to foreign governments or to foreigners in general.
So, under the First Amendment, the government cannot prohibit me from publishing a newspaper, but it can prohibit anyone from buying the newspaper?
Yes, regulation of commerce is one of the functions of the government. There are possible illegal schemes involving transfer of funds with bogus ‘newspapers’, for example. $1000 for a copy of the Money Laundering Times, anyone?
Depends on which version of the CT you’re going with. Under the one where Trump’s underlings met with a Russian lawyer, probably nothing. For the way out there CTs there’s money laundering, conspiracy to commit electoral fraud, and maybe racketeering due to all the supposed mob connections. Note that Bush and pals weren’t tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity, nor did those responsible for the '08 crash do a frog march for fraud, so even if Trump is literally a Russian stooge it might not matter that much. If Trump made a mistake it might have been attacking another center of power that can hit back, a mistake that Nixon made too. Bomb thousands of Asians into paste? That’s cool. Steal stuff from a DNC HQ? Outrageous!
This position would be more defensible if America kept its nose out of other people’s business.
If my understanding of the facts is correct, it hasn’t been established that anything of value was actually exchanged at the meeting, though it could turn up later in the course of an investigation. Thus the possible basis of a criminal complaint is that Donald Trump Jr violated the law by attempting or conspiring to attempt something of value from a foreign government.
Donny Jr may – I stress may – have violated the spirit of the law without necessarily violating the letter of it, which would probably make prosecuting the case difficult. Typically “something of value” refers to goods and services that one would normally purchase. A lot of people view the information that Russian intel claimed to have possessed as something similar to opposition research. However, opposition research is very specific in that it is information obtained through political research, typically conducted by a political organization, and who typically expect payment in exchange for that labor, either through billable hours or a project that is completed. I’m not sure that foreign intelligence collected on a particular individual neatly falls into that category. At the same time, it might not neatly fall into the category of an old high school classmate, college roommate, or jilted ex-lover volunteering to divulge embarrassing private information either. Speaking strictly in terms of campaign finance laws, Donny Jr’s email chain might be evidence of a violation but it might not be the cleanest case to present to a jury. My guess is that there’s probably never going to be a campaign finance case against him.
However, as I said on another thread, what the information does absolutely reveal is clear intent to develop a close working relationship with the Russian government prior to the election itself. By itself this would almost surely be something that federal authorities would at least look into, but in the context of everything else that has already come to light and given the already expansive investigation of Mueller and his associates, I suspect that this will only lead to more inquiry and more collection of evidence. My guess is that Mueller’s team is looking at a range of things from money laundering among campaign associates to violations of laws pertaining to national security.
That’s an entirely indefensible case. Practically, we only have to go back a few months to the courts’ rationale for halting the travel ban for an example of your assertion not being correct.
Has there ever been a court case about this statute (or any related) where information has been interpreted to be a donation?
Well, you’re correct that the 1st amendment doesn’t apply to “foreign governments or foreigners in general.” It only applies to one body: the US Congress.
Unfortunately for you, that means you’re completely wrong in your disagreement with Bricker. Congress can’t pass a law limiting anyone’s free speech, citizen or non-citizen. Doesn’t matter who’s speaking, Congress can’t touch it.
What’s your views on the constitutionality of disclosure laws? Can the government enact a law that says you can talk to anyone you like but you have to disclose it publicly? Or would such a law be an unconstitutional infringement on free speech?