This is, as you should know, incredibly dangerous to do without case law. “Thing of value” doesn’t mean “thing that belongs to a category of things that people sometimes pay for.”
And even if it did, within the meaning of the statute, you have to think about First Amendment implications of your interpretation.
You’re definitely doing your part.
Foreign governments have first amendment rights? Do tell.
The campaigns absolutely do. Their ability to speak to foreign governments raises First Amendment concerns. Chilling that can be unconstitutional.
But I was talking about what could be impeachable. If they did something to help him win (whether it was effective or not) and he is now doing something for them, then I think this seems like a clear-cut formulation of the premise behind bribery. If that isn’t bribery, then it is some other high crime, because it completely destroys the functioning of our electoral system. If it is open season on foreign agents running for office, then the fundamental idea of representative democracy no longer exists in the US. I’m sure any actual impeachment trial would lay out the evidence and make sure that no one is convicted without at least a preponderance of evidence of wrongdoing. But given that you might disagree with whether or not that evidence exists, it sounds like you do agree that there are at least good reasons to believe this is what happened, and that if it happened it cannot be allowed to stand.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/thing-of-value/
A “thing of value” includes intangible objectives,
Persily pointed to a 2011 U.S. District Court ruling based on the 2002 law. The judges said that the law bans foreign nationals “from making expenditures to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a political candidate.”
I’m sure you see, gman, how a candidate for office should not meet with foreign governments and do backdoor deals with them before they are even elected. This is representing the US government without authorization, essentially impersonating the government. Then that foreign government tries and succeeds in manipulating the election to get their deal done.
This is a bad thing. The mere impression of this is a very bad thing and attacks democracy.
It is impeachable, because anything is technically impeachable if Congress finds it objectionable, but it would seem to be better for democracy to simply remove Trump through an election unless clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing (ie, a statute on the books) is found. Not just a preponderance of evidence – clear proof.
I honestly think you’re making this shit up as you go along. Oppo research is manifestly a thing of value. It may turn out that a court decides the statute doesn’t really mean that, but no court has decided that, and the people who made the law explicitly stated that they intended ‘thing of value’ to be broadly construed. It may also be the case that a Court would strike down this law for the reasons you stated, but it seems wildly unlikely to me, and in any event no court has done so.
So, it is evidence of a violation of the law (a crime) for which an investigation is a reasonable step. Do you agree, or not?
Well, Shiva cracked the case. All a court has to do to interpret this statute in a constitutional manner is to go to “US legal dot com.” No need for nuance or analysis. This is how laws work!
The problem, of course, is that I never disputed that things of value could be intangible. I disputed that oppo research in this context is a thing of value that could be criminalized without also infringing on the First Amendment rights of campaigns.
Very much so, which is why people pay money for it.
Yes of course, the Mueller probe is a good thing, I’ve said that repeatedly.
?? Do you think Russia thought Trump campaign officials were in office?
Again, people pay $150,000 for a sit-down coffee with Obama. Some businesses would pay that much for a glimpse of Trump now at one of their events. Is it therefore criminal for Trump to offer any of this to, say, Russia at the Helsinki summit this week?
Nobody paid obama $150,000 WHILE HE WAS IN FUCKING OFFICE.
Trump is CURRENTLY IN OFFICE.
You really are just fucking bad at this.
This isn’t even the same discussion. But of course you move the goalposts and change subjects when someone gives you easily found evidence that refutes your claim.
Please stop doing it.
Tom said it best - gman argues like he’s in a court of law, not a conversation or debate class. It means for him there are different rules than the rest of us, and he doesn’t have to argue in good faith if he can get his “client” off.
Why is that? It seems like a stronger defense of democracy is required in this case, because what he did threatens the very idea of representative democracy itself. If he gets to serve out his whole term as a result, then we are saying that it is fine for foreign agents to hold elected office in the US (and to do so without disclosing their relationship prior to election). Waiting 4 years to correct that wrong is very bad, so no, we shouldn’t wait until he can be voted out or charged with a crime, we should act when there is clear evidence that he is beholden to a foreign power. It seems impossible to me that no law exists to make that a crime, but whether it does or not this is the kind of thing impeachment exists for.
I know that in reality things are too partisan for this, but all it should take is each Senator answering the question, “Do you believe that Trump is taking action on behalf of Russia for personal gain, rather than to further US interests?” He doesn’t even have to be harming US interests for that to be textbook bribery.
It’s absolutely the same discussion. If you are going to maintain that oppo research is a “thing of value,” you need to be able to distinguish it from ordinary political consulting that also costs money on the open market. No one here has been able to do that.
The problem, of course, is that you can’t meaningfully distinguish oppo research from political consulting. How is Trump’s team meeting with Russian officials to talk about Hillary’s weaknesses illegal given that we have a First Amendment?
All I hear in response is “But Obama never had political meetings while in office!” Which is manifestly untrue. He is on a hot mic promising the Russian ambassador “flexibility” after the election. Is US flexibility not a thing of value? I know many governments that would pay big for it.
“If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”
I hope you guys are getting it by now.
The problem with this approach is that, much like Supreme Court confirmations now, you will find that partisanship will dominate impeachment proceedings going forward. Literally every president would have cause to be impeached if we are considering circumstantial evidence that their foreign policy is helping adversaries more than our own. Republicans would not shut up about Obama helping ISIS for the past 3 years of his election for instance. That’s not healthy for a democracy, to take that out in impeachment hearings. It’s meant to be a last resort when you have more evidence.
Surely not! He wouldn’t last a day.