Surly lawyers: Re your text message interpreting 52 USC 30121...call me.

[tantric superman 4668]

Correct me if I am wrong.  This is the statute that Trump arguably violated:

52 U.S.C. § 30121 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 52. Voting and Elections § 30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

 

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for--

(1)  a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make--

(A)  a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B)  a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party;  or

(C)  an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title);  or

(2)  a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

(b)  “Foreign national” defined

As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means--

(1)  a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of Title 22 , except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States;  or

(2)  an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of Title 8 ) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of Title 8 .

Trump would be liable under (a)(2) correct?

If so, notice how (a)(2) does not include "or other thing of value" which is listed in (a)(1)(A)?

The promise to investigate Biden is an "other thing of value" isn't it?

That seems like a pretty big hole to me in terms of finding him liable under this particular statute.

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

you're reading it wrong.

donation goes with both (i) money and (ii) other thing of value.  [if it didn't, the sentence would be the nongrammatical "It shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make a . . . other thing of value"]

so when it says you cannot solicit the "donation described", it is "donation of other thing of value."

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

(contribution goes with them too.  contribution of (i) money or (ii) other thing of value.  donation of (i) money or (ii) other thing of value)

[TwiceHorn 31686]

It seems that just about anything could be a "thing of value" under FEC interpretation.  I don't think it's been tested.

I think calling this "election interference" or an "election law violation" focuses on the wrong thing.

People would be aghast if he had the FBI or IRS investigate political opponents.  Instead he's asking foreign governments to do it.  It's astonishingly corrupt, whether it's illegal or not.

[tantric superman 4668]

This is why Charles Allen Wright never liked me asking questions in his class. 

"There are no stupid questions.  Just stupid people asking questions."

(He never really said that.)

[TwiceHorn 31686]

Back when the first accusation of "thing of value" surfaced, I found this https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download

Which is a USA guide to election crimes.  There are no case cites on the foreign national thing, which is what led me to believe it hasn't been explored.

[Bama Chick 28596]

The head of the FEC, Ellen Weintraub, was interviewed on the last “Pod Save America” and she said a “thing of value” can be information or polling or oppo research.

She was asked what if a campaign asked another party to dig up dirt on an opponent but the investigation didn’t discover anything. Is that a “thing of value”? She said yes because there would be expenses involved in any investigation even if nothing is discovered in said investigation.

It’s the last 15 minutes or so of the episode titled “Where Is The Line?”.

[DanTheHorn 4971]

56 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It seems that just about anything could be a "thing of value" under FEC interpretation.  I don't think it's been tested.

I think calling this "election interference" or an "election law violation" focuses on the wrong thing.

People would be aghast if he had the FBI or IRS investigate political opponents.  Instead he's asking foreign governments to do it.  It's astonishingly corrupt, whether it's illegal or not.

17% of those polled by FOX believe it is appropriate and are not aghast.

[ChiTownDoc 21229]

Oh that’s the one statute he violated?  Huh 

[gmr548 16641]

People would be aghast if he had the FBI or IRS investigate political opponents.  Instead he's asking foreign governments to do it.  It's astonishingly corrupt, whether it's illegal or not.

Are you implying Republicans are not people?


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[troph 24929]

May not have been tested but that’s because until now even our worst presidents weren’t this bad, it’s not because it’s unclear.

[TwiceHorn 31686]

Just now, troph said:

May not have been tested but that’s because until now even our worst presidents weren’t this bad, it’s not because it’s unclear.

Did not intend to imply that, just wondered in the past if the law went as far as the language.

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

i wish the USCA had the sunglasses emoji in the paper text.