First, I like the way you present your arguments.
In the two "definitions" you supplied, I see nothing in there stating that is illegal for someone like me to hire someone from another country in order to gather information regarding an opponent in an election. Since the word "donation" is highlighted and paragraphs d through e are not spelled out, I don't call the dossier Steele submitted to Clinton to be a "donation". This was a paid-for work product, not a donation. The source of the information is irrelevant. So again I ask what law did Hillary Clinton break? There has been a great deal of discussion about the Steele dossier and those who attack Clinton say she should not have accepted the information without checking it out, but I don't believe anyone questioned whether or not she broke the law by simply obtaining it. And to support my opinion:
Speaking of opposition research, what’s the deal with Steele dossier?
In 2016, lawyers for Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid a company named Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump and his campaign. Fusion GPS then hired a former British spy named Christopher Steele to compile information about Trump’s ties to Russia, all of which ended up in a dossier.
Republicans have long had an issue with the dossier, but this week, Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), used it to deflect from Trump’s comments. Graham said that all public officials should contact the FBI if approached by a foreign government, but added that “this has not been a recent practice and we saw that come to a head during the 2016 presidential campaign.”
But Graham pointed to the Clinton campaign as his example. “During that race, we had a major American political party hire a foreign national, Christopher Steele, to dig up dirt on an American presidential candidate,” he tweeted.
Experts told me that when it comes to campaign finance law, hiring or contracting a foreigner to do services for a campaign is allowed. “You can pay a foreign national to provide you with services, so a campaign, for instance, could have a campaign attorney who is a Canadian citizen,” Levinson said. “As long as you pay fair market rates for those services, that’s not what the federal campaign act says is prohibited. That’s just a fair exchange of money for services.”
If this kind of seems like a loophole, experts pointed out that it would be really hard to run a campaign otherwise. It would mean having to worry if the campaign signs you printed came from a foreign company, or if the catering firm you hired had foreign workers.
If a campaign is paying someone for work or services, they’re being compensated. But where that doesn’t happen, and a campaign is accepting a contribution — or “thing of value” — from a foreign government, the question then is what’s in it for them?
https://www.vox.com/2019/6/14/186776...ec-illegal-fbi
So based on that I do not believe Clinton broke any laws regarding obtaining the Steele dossier. And I never said Trump broke any laws. The POTUS does not have to break a law to be impeached. What he is alleged to have done is to me highly unethical. Whether it is unethical enough to warrant impeachment I'll let the House decide that. And if they do decide to impeach, I'll abide by the Senate's decision as to guilty or not. Yes, Joe Biden did a quid pro quo with the Ukraine but his quid pro quo had no impact on a future election in this country. Earlier this year Trump withheld funds from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador until they agreed to stop the flow of immigrants from their countries to the U.S. A quid pro quo with which no one had any problems..
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
I'll return the compliment and say I appreciate you doing the research to back up your argument. I'm very familiar with the source you used and as with most of these issues, different legal scholars present different arguments. That's why we see 5 to 4 decisions on the SC. I ask myself, these are supposed to be the brightest of the brightest, the people who know the law the best and 5 see it one way and 4 the other, how can that be?
Let me take a few of your comments and give my reply. I'll put your comments in blue to keep your comments distinct from mine
Since the word "donation" is highlighted and paragraphs d through e are not spelled out, I don't call the dossier Steele submitted to Clinton to be a "donation".
I've been making this argument for years. A little back story. I was on another board for 15 years until it was recently taken down and I had to find a new place to debate. This is always part of the argument. It doesn't have to be a "donation" which is why I posted the second section. It says one may not make a donation of money or "other thing of value". This was discussed in the Mueller consideration of what Don Jr. did. Jr. solicited a "thing of value" which if one reads the whole law sees that "information is a thing of value". One may not receive a thing of value, information from a foreign national. Notice that no where in the law does it give an exception that if you pay for it, it's OK. Like most other things, there are two ways of looking at this too. Some say that unless the words give an exception, an exception can not be assumed while others say if it doesn't say you can't, then you can. Being a literalist when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, my position has always been, if the exception isn't there in the words, it can not be assumed.
This was a paid-for work product, not a donation.
It was "something of value" and it was given by a foreign national. No where does it say if you pay the foreign national, it's OK the idea being that foreign nationals should play no part in opposition research.
or if the catering firm you hired had foreign workers.
Come on now, surely you can see the fallacy in that argument. You can have a foreign worker do all kinds of jobs for you or some think but opposition research isn't one of them because a foreign country could be providing disinformation which according to Dr. Hill, is exactly what Russia did to Steele who passed it to Hillary to be used against her opponent and that's why the law says unequivocally that information from a foreign source may not be used, period. Would it surprise you to find out that Bernie Sanders was fined for a federal election campaign violation for using foreign workers on his campaign something you just told me was OK by law?
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/collusion-complaint-says-sanders-violated-federal-election-laws-by-hiring-non-american-campaign-advisers/
It noted that three members of the Sanders campaign are foreign nationals, and that’s a clear violation of federal election laws that prohibit foreign interference.
The source of the information is irrelevant
It most certainly is not as I just explained. Ask yourself knowing what we now know, "do we want information from Russia used in our elections"? Isn't that exactly what we are now trying to prevent so diligently?
There has been a great deal of discussion about the Steele dossier and those who attack Clinton say she should not have accepted the information without checking it out, but I don't believe anyone questioned whether or not she broke the law by simply obtaining it.
As you can clearly see, there are a great number of people questioning whether she broke the law or not and it doesn't matter whether she accepted it or not, she "solicited it" and she hired a foreign national to do that and to get it from Russia. When The Dems were calling for Don Jr. to be prosecuted, the right was making the same argument. "He didn't actually receive any information" they said. Doesn't matter, the law says you may not solicit it whether you get it or not. Much like if you broke into a house to steal something but you found nothing, you still broke the law. If you shot at somebody but missed, you still broke the law. The act doesn't have to be completed. Isn't that the argument that Repubs are making about Trump not getting his speech from Valensky in order to get his money? Republicans are saying that since he got his money and never gave the speech, there was no quid pro quo but the fact that he asked for it "technically" violates the law or so say the Dem's.
“You can pay a foreign national to provide you with services
Again, ( although the fine against Sanders would seem to invalidate that theory ) agreed like catering or making those signs you talked about but services is not the same as oppo research, information, "dirt" for the sole purpose of using it against your political opponent. That is what the law forbids and trying to conflate the two is easily IMHO distinguishable but partisans will conflate the two to advance their narrative IMHO.
The POTUS does not have to break a law to be impeached.
That's why I posted the article by Johnathan Turly a respected Constitutional scholar who said that phrase is incorrect. The House should base an impeachment on the law otherwise any President could be impeached for anything the other party didn't like including his policies they disagree with. And when this gets to the Senate and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is presiding, do you think he thinks a President can be impeached without presenting a legal argument with defined laws ( statutes ) given? Why should the House be any different? Pelosi is said to have conducted a focus group and asked what was the best word to use since quid pro quo didn't seem to be doing the trick and guess what word was agreed upon as being the best? Bribery which by definition is a legal term and must have a legal argument to prove it and Bribery is not what ever the House says it is, it is defined by law and if you can't prove that law, you can't prove bribery.
Yes, Joe Biden did a quid pro quo with the Ukraine but his quid pro quo had no impact on a future election in this country.
Again, IMHO, you are conflating two arguments. The law says that a quid pro quo is "I'll give you something if you give me something", an official act are the exact words used in the law. Firing the prosecutor of another country is asking for an official act for which I will give you money. The classic definition of a quid pro quo and the law says nothing about how it must have something to do with an election. Those are added words that do not appear in the definition of a quid pro quo but do appear in the federal election law I quoted. Remember at best, this is a federal election law violation which is usually punishable with a fine, not impeachment.
Hillary through Steele, asked a foreign government to provide dirt on he opponent in a federal election.
Trump asked a foreign government to provide an investigation an investigation that I think even Democrats are now starting to believe is necessary to find out if their candidate actually was involved in a corrupt act.
This notion that a President is not above the law isn't true either. There are a number of things a President can do that an ordinary citizen can't do and I believe that a President may ask a foreign country to investigate a political opponent if that political opponent participated in a quid pro quo whether it was for a personal matter or not. If there was an obvious ( which there was ) appearance of impropriety. The President had a duty to find out if Ukraine was finally going to investigate corruption and Burisma was corrupt and who better to ask what he knew about corruption than a member of the board of Burisma.
Tonight Biden is really pissed that Graham is asking for information on Hunter to be used in any Senate trial. I Think Dem's will rue the day they started this and I can't wait to put Adam Schiff before the camera's and swear under oath he didn't know who the whistle blower was like he has said and if he continues with his lie IMHO, his staff will be called and asked under penalty if that's true. Imagine if they say, it's not true and Schiff is prosecuted for lying to Congress. The perfect ending IMHO.
