That may be. I looked around the federal regs for some definitional clarity, and they don't really answer that question. Seems like a reasonable argument to make in court.
If I'm not mistaken the prohibition is not on getting foreign sourced opposition research, it's about being donated it. If you wanted to pay the fair market value for that information it would be perfectly legal to do so, no?
That's how I understand it from the stand point of "in-kind" contributions.
Unless it can be shown he received something I don't know if it will hurt him from a campaign finance law standpoint. Nothing of value was actually received. What the email chain does show is his willingness to collude with what was communicated as information directly from the Russian government intended to help his father's campaign.I think there's so much fuckery around Russia and Trump that it all gets very confusing. As far as I can see we have multiple separate scandals which are related. We have the original hacking scandal and we have this, which aren't necessarily the same thing. The reason the Trump Jr. revelations were originally noteworthy is that they showed collusion between the Russian government (or at least people close to it) and Trump's campaign, something they had categorically denied when pressed about the hacking scandal. Now for this scandal it turns out that he not only appears to have been colluding with them but he and other campaign figures may have committed an entirely separate crime by doing so.
Remember too that the only evidence we have that nothing was provided is Trump Jr's claim that they didn't get anything. Considering that he's lied about literally every other aspect of that meeting there's absolutely no reason to believe him on that either. It's entirely possible the two scandals meet up again in the future.
Unless it can be shown he received something I don't know if it will hurt him from a campaign finance law standpoint. Nothing of value was actually received. What the email chain does show is his willingness to collude with what was communicated as information directly from the Russian government intended to help his father's campaign.
This whole thing is getting a lot muddier and a lot deeper.
Unless it can be shown he received something I don't know if it will hurt him from a campaign finance law standpoint. Nothing of value was actually received. What the email chain does show is his willingness to collude with what was communicated as information directly from the Russian government intended to help his father's campaign.
This whole thing is getting a lot muddier and a lot deeper.
I'm at work so I haven't been able to look too closely at the emails. As I understand it they would have to ask or imply that they would like to receive information to rise to the level of solicitation. If that's in the email chain I've missed it or just can't see it due to blocks.In order to break the law you don't have to get anything, you simply have to solicit it, which he pretty clearly does in those emails. Like with obstruction of justice, the ATTEMPT is the crime, it doesn't matter if that attempt is successful or not.
Not really the same thing as this. There are laws against solicitation to murder explicitly. This is quite different. i can solicit donations from people too. I just can't solicit if from foreign individuals knowingly. They can offer to give me money. I just can't accept it.If I arrange to meet with someone to discuss murdering my wife, and that person is an undercover agent, I go to jail whether or not it is done.
This is intent.
I'm at work so I haven't been able to look too closely at the emails. As I understand it they would have to ask or imply that they would like to receive information to rise to the level of solicitation. If that's in the email chain I've missed it or just can't see it due to blocks.
Ok that certainly does look like he's implying he would accept it.One of the emails to DJT Jr. says they can provide documents that 'would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with russia and would be very useful to your father...this is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump.'
To this DJT Jr. replied: "If it's what you say I love it, especially later in the summer."
That sure sounds like he's saying he would like to receive it to me.
One of the emails to DJT Jr. says they can provide documents that 'would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with russia and would be very useful to your father...this is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump.'
To this DJT Jr. replied: "If it's what you say I love it, especially later in the summer."
That sure sounds like he's saying he would like to receive it to me.
Ok that certainly does look like he's implying he would accept it.
BTW regardless of Jr.'s guilt or innocence, that puts to rest the issue of whether or not the Russian government tried to help Trump win. I'm curious how conservatives, who have been denying what the IC has told us all along, will rationalize that one. I'm sure they'll find a way. I'm just curious how.
One of the emails to DJT Jr. says they can provide documents that 'would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with russia and would be very useful to your father...this is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump.'
To this DJT Jr. replied: "If it's what you say I love it, especially later in the summer."
That sure sounds like he's saying he would like to receive it to me.
If a reasonable person would believe the information to have been obtained illicitly, his failure to report it immediately could rise to misprision of a felony.
I'm still struggling to wrap my head around this.
NYT set up a sword on the 50 yard line. Instead of carefully negotiating around it...or not even going near it...Jr takes a full on sprint from the end zone and does a leaping belly flop onto said sword.
The other thing I've learned is the three stages of Trump denial.
1) Never happened.
2) Ok. So it sort of happened.
3. IT FUCKING HAPPENED AND HERE'S TWEETS YOUTUBE EMAIL AND RECEIPTS OF IT HAPPENING
Very true, outside of whether or not DJT Jr. violated a specific campaign finance law is the much, much larger issue of collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. This shows beyond a reasonable doubt that collusion either existed or was actively sought by Trump's people at the highest levels.
Even though Trump wasn't in the meeting, the idea that his son, son in law, and campaign manager all decided to meet with who they believed to be a representative of the Russian government in order to get incriminating information on his opponent without his knowledge or acceptance strains credulity unless he's one of the stupidest/most incompetent people on the planet.
Same with prostitution. Cops don't wait for sex to begin before busting.If I arrange to meet with someone to discuss murdering my wife, and that person is an undercover agent, I go to jail whether or not it is done.
This is intent.