As I mentioned, it’s a topic of high legal debate, which is why I’m irritated by the insistence here that it’s so clearly a settled issue. I never disputed that oppo research could be an intangible thing of value; only that it was a thing of value in the context of the statutes being discussed. In other words, I disputed that enforcing the law with respect to oppo research here is legal.
USC 52 §30121 was updated in 2002. Try to keep up.
Every single legal thing is a subject of legal debate, because lawyers will argue anything that suits their purpose; but that doesn’t stop the plain language of the law from applying until a court says it doesn’t apply. And I don’t know what ‘high’ legal debate is. I’m guessing you think that sounds cool or something,
It means that knowledgeable people are debating it without harassing each other over it. :)
Sitting Presidents are not constrained by the Logan Act. Try to keep up.
Dude, no one here is seriously talking about the Logan Act. It’s an ancient, anachronistic and unenforced law that would be unconstitutional to apply to Trump’s team, not to mention absurd (since Russia would never think they represent the US government). My question was whether you would regard such a conversation illegal if conducted by someone not in office.
Then why do you keep offering examples which are facially claims about the Logan Act?
It’s not about the Logan act; the missile question is about whether you regard those discussions as impermissible offers for things of value.
No, I regard it as a sitting President conducting foreign policy, and not a violation of either the Logan Act or USC 52 §30121. I thought I made that clear.
I would offer the suggestion that the discussion about Russia perhaps move to the thread dedicated to Russian interference in the election. I kind of opened this can of worms here by posting a thing about russia in the facebook thread, but at this point the discussion has nothing to do with Facebook at all.
I assume that folks aren’t going to freak out and start screaming at gman that he can’t post in it if the discussion were refocused in the russian thread, given the discussion he’s having with folks is squarely centered on the potential legalities of russian collusion and crap.
I actually don’t think this is ok. I don’t think a sitting President should condition negotiations with a foreign power on that power acting in a way that eases re-election. Is that what Obama actually did, or did he simply tell them to cool their heels because making a deal during the election cycle was politically untenable? See the difference is whether he was saying, “There’s no point in pressing this issue now because I can’t agree to it now” or saying “If you agree to help or at least not hinder my re-election, I can do more for you”. The first is mildly dishonest in the way political campaigns are kind of openly dishonest because of the gotcha media game. The second is trading US policy considerations for personal political gains.
I’d also like to mention a “foreign national” is quite different than “foreign agent.” I see a lot of mention of the former, when it’s the latter which (I believe, IANAL) is the big issue.
But doesn’t this also necessarily happen a lot? When Obama slapped sanctions on Chinese tire manufacturers to help out Detroit, that was a clear effort to affect US policy for personal political gains (it led to retaliatory poultry tariffs that he was OK with, because he wanted the auto manufacturers’ support). Does it matter if it was part of a trade? Isn’t it similarly concerning?
It is so hard to separate out. To be clear, I don’t think Obama’s comments were illegal or wrong either. They were a necessary part of political governance, and I don’t see a way to criminalize them without trampling on our constitution.
I think it was more the latter. But Obama certainly was not being forthright with his constituents, because he would never tell them openly that he’d take a different approach to Russia post-re-election.
Question was if an unelected person did it.
Foreign nationals also are limited in what help they can give to US election campaigns, and people here are limited in their interactions with them while campaigning, even if not explicitly foreign agents. But certainly, someone being a foreign agent would make it easier to make the case that someone is knowingly colluding or even committing treason.
P&R is something else, baby.
P&R is a huge mess these days, and not in terms of tone. For instance, I’m enjoying reading gman, Scott’s, and ravenight’s interaction in this thread, partly because I think they all get that the conversation is being treated as if they were arguing a legal case. I find it fascinating to read, and it’s distinct from what’s going on in the other Russia thread.
But the way conversations drift and morph and overlap existing threads is where the real mess is. I’ve just been thinking of it as just the way P&R works, especially with how Trump pollutes the news cycle every day with some new development, or idiotic statement, or outrage. It’s hard to keep up. But short of spending a lot of time curating and monitoring the P&R threads, I’m not sure what can be done to make these discussions easier to find. Or, in some cases, ignore.
-Tom
No, there’s a clear distinction between enacting policies you believe will be popular with groups of Americans in order to get them to vote for you (this is called representing your constituency) and enacting policies you believe will be popular with non-American groups, who helped or will help you get elected (this is called bribery).
I agree that it is bribery to take official action in an explicit exchange for some personal gain. The question is whether we have that exchange, or just two parties that fell into a happy, mutually beneficial relationship.
One of the many changes to federal law made recently by the conservative Supreme Court, which has repeatedly used the First Amendment to limit what its majority says are overreaching federal prosecutions, is to limit the scope of political bribery tremendously. You basically need an explicit quid-pro-quo – it’s not enough to just show that one person habitually took officially actions that helped another, and also received other benefits from that person on a regular basis.
My contention is that Trump and Russia fell into a happy relationship. Putin recognized that Trump would be better for him than Hillary, and Trump liked that, and the idea of Putin helping him win. So, he’s been friendly with Putin, and has repeatedly received benefits.
Bribery would be if he solicited that arrangement.
I guess if this was just a happy, mutually beneficial relationship, then the Trump team really messed up by obstructing justice!
Well, based on the reactions we are seeing here, it’s not hard to imagine a political motive for lying about the relationship.