[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Sorry, CNN, We're Not Going to Stop Talking About the Russian Collusion Hoax

"No Autopsy Can Restore the Democratic Party’s Viability"

RIP Ozzy

"Trump floats 'restriction' for Commanders if they fail to ditch nickname in favor of Redskins return"

"Virginia Governor’s Race Heats Up As Republican Winsome Sears Does a Hard Reboot of Her Campaign"

"We Hate Communism!!"

"Mamdani and the Democratic Schism"

"The 2nd Impeachment: Trump’s Popularity Still Scares Them to Death"

"President Badass"

"Jasmine Crockett's Train Wreck Interview Was a Disaster"

"How Israel Used Spies, Smuggled Drones and AI to Stun and Hobble Iran"

There hasn’T been ... a single updaTe To This siTe --- since I joined.

"This Is Not What Authoritarianism Looks Like"

America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets

AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996]

Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment?

Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit

"The Addled Activist Mind"

"Don’t Stop with Harvard"

"Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?"

"Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF"

"'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal"

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"

Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Why Donald Trump Jr. is Innocent. Period.
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://lawnewz.com/opinion/why-donald-trump-jr-is-innocent-period/
Published: Jul 12, 2017
Author: The Law
Post Date: 2017-07-12 08:46:32 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 7258
Comments: 48

Excerpt:

The Code of Federal Regulations makes the law immunizing Trump Jr.’s actions precisely clear: any foreign national individual may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The law provides this volunteer “exemption” as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone on the campaign. See 11 CFR 100.74. For example, as the Federal Election Commission advises all, “an individual can provide volunteer services to a candidate or party without considering the value of those service a contribution to the candidate or party.” Section 30121 of Title 52 does not apply to voluntary activity or services. The thing “of value” must be actual money, or its transferable equivalent, not a volunteer of services or information. Otherwise, if volunteering information in coordination with a campaign constituted donations, everyone from John Harwood to Chuck Todd (and maybe all of CNN) made millions in donations to the Hillary campaign, as WikiLeaks emails disclosed.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 48.

#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)

So says Facebook.

But the argument is that the information purportedly came from the Russian government and was to be passed on to Don Jr. by a Russian government attorney.

Yes, yes, yes. As we now know, that was all bullshit. Nothing came from the Russian government, the lawyer didn't work for the Russian government, and there was no incriminating information to pass on. It was all a ruse.

BUT, according to the emails, Don Jr. didn't know that at the time of the meeting. He was told the information WAS coming from the Russian government and was to be passed on to him by a Russian government attorney, and he went to the meeting believing that.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-12   9:10:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone, redleghunter (#1)

BUT, according to the emails, Don Jr. didn't know that at the time of the meeting. He was told the information WAS coming from the Russian government

No, Trump Jr. was told the information was being leaked by a Russian government official.

Donald Trump Jr. received an email from Rob Goldstone, not a Russian government agent.

Trump Jr. did not go to the meeting, the meeting came to him, 725 5th AVe., 25th floor, brought to the meeting by Rob Goldstone.

The Russian lawyer did not have an entry visa and was granted parole entry into the United States by the Obama Justice Department.

As with a U.S. government lawyer, a Russian government lawyer would not be representing her government on unofficial business.

What is the alleged crime of meeting with a third-party Russian lawyer for the purpose of receiving unspecified alleged official documents allegedly leaked by a Russian government official with whom Trump Jr. had no direct contact whatever?

Nobody claims any documents were passed.

Nobody claims that the Russian lawyer attempted to pass on any documents or information about Hillary Clinton.

Nobody claimed any personal knowledge or possession of documents. The only claimed knowledge of documents is Rob Goldstone alleging that an acquaintance of Trump Jr. had allegedly alleged that his Russian government relative was allegedly desirous of leaking some unspecified official documents to the Trump campaign.

It sounds about as criminal as downloading a document from Wikileaks.

And the documents sound as real as Teo Manti's girlfriend.

It reads more like a sting operation. The lawyer did not have to be in on it. Goldstone could have told her he could get a meeting where she could pitch opposition to the Magnitsky Act. But who had the power to grant the Russian lawyer parole entry into the United States without a visa? Loretta Lynch's Department of Justice.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-13   1:29:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: nolu chan (#10)

"What is the alleged crime of meeting with a third-party Russian lawyer for the purpose of receiving unspecified alleged official documents allegedly leaked by a Russian government official with whom Trump Jr. had no direct contact whatever?"

I don't see a crime there. But that's not the issue.

From the information in the emails, Don Jr. thought he was meeting with a Russian government attorney who was acting as a go-between to pass on incriminating information about Hillary. This information was coming from a named high-level Russian government official demonstrating the Russian government's support for Trump.

Now, that was all a lie. A scam. A sting. A setup. Call it whatever you want. But Don Jr. didn't know that when he set up the meeting.

The fact that he took the meeting seems to demonstrate an attempt at collusion with the Russian government to influence the campaign. No?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-13   9:57:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone, redleghunter (#13)

This information was coming from a named high-level Russian government official

No, it was allegedly being provided by the "Crown prosecutor of Russia." There is no "Crown" anything in a republic, such as Russia. It was allegedly coming from a fictional character.

The fact that he took the meeting seems to demonstrate an attempt at collusion with the Russian government to influence the campaign. No?

No. There is no suggestion of a leak by the Russian government. There is only the suggestion of a leak by one non-existent Russian government official who was allegedly proposing to act outside his official duties to leak information.

Now, that was all a lie. A scam. A sting. A setup. Call it whatever you want.

Ok. I'd call it quite possibly a staged event to create the appearance of a Russia connection at Trump Tower to enable the Obama administration to creatively support an application to a FISA court to grant an application for foreign surveillance, the results of such surveillance then being subjected to the unveiling of the names of the U.S. persons therein.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-13   15:43:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: nolu chan (#23)

There is no "Crown" anything in a republic, such as Russia.

"Goldstone seems to have garbled things a bit; in the United Kingdom a Crown prosecutor is one that works for the Crown, i.e., a federal prosecutor. There’s no such position in Russia technically, but the analogue would be the top federal prosecutor of Russia, and that is Yury Chaika, the prosecutor-general of the Russian Federation."
-- theatlantic.com

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-13   16:04:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: misterwhite (#24) (Edited)

Goldstone seems to have garbled things a bit

He referred to a nonexistent position. What Russian source could have referred to a crown prosecutor?

As a Dem scam event, any Russian government connection would have been unnecessary and unwanted. Ms. Veselnitskaya could have arrived only to pitch opposition to the Magnitsky Act. The Dem scammer seeking to manufacture cause to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil Trump Tower would not have cared what was confusedly said at the meeting. They only cared that a meeting with a Russian lawyer was taken at Trump Tower.

There is no actual evidence of any involvement of Yuri Chaika, nor is there any actual evidence of any anti-Hillary information or document involved or pitched at the meeting.

Moreover, Goldstone told the WSJ that by Crown prosecutor, he meant Veselnitskaya.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/12/who-is-natalia-veselnitskaya-low-level-lawyer-or-kremlin-power-broker

Goldstone told the Wall Street Journal his reference to the “crown prosecutor” meant Veselnitskaya, which seems unlikely as she is a defence lawyer and has never been a prosecutor. In the same exchange Goldstone referred to her as an “attorney”.

The Agalarovs were Trump’s partners in Russia during the 2013 Miss Universe contest hosted in Moscow, and Trump had even appeared in one of Emin’s music videos. Goldstone had worked as Emin’s agent.

Agalarov told a Russian radio station on Wednesday that he was not involved in setting up the meeting. “What’s Hillary Clinton got to do with this? I don’t know. I don’t know Rob Goldstone at all,” he said. He did admit that Goldstone had worked for his son.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-13   17:25:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: nolu chan (#25)

What Russian source could have referred to a crown prosecutor?

None. But he was Australian, so it would be natural for him to refer to the top guy as the "Crown prosecutor".

"There is no actual evidence of any involvement of Yuri Chaika, nor is there any actual evidence ..."

I don't care. That's beside the point. My point is that Don Jr. believed these things and set up the meeting anyways.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-13   17:57:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: misterwhite (#26)

So what. It isn't illegal or immoral. What is your point?

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-07-13   18:29:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: A K A Stone (#27)

So what. It isn't illegal or immoral. What is your point?

Conspiring with a foreign government to influence a U.S. Presidential election isn't illegal or immoral?

If Hillary did that I'm sure you'd feel differently.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-14   9:50:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: misterwhite (#32)

onspiring with a foreign government to influence a U.S. Presidential election isn't illegal or immoral?

Someone leaking something to someone is not conspiring with a foreign government.

Congress is forbidden from making ANY law regarding freedom of speech.

It doesn't matter what I would think of Hillary. The law is the law.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-07-14   10:26:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: A K A Stone (#34) (Edited)

Someone leaking something to someone is not conspiring with a foreign government.

I think you mean, "Someone leaking something to someone is not something with a something-something."

There. NOW I agree with you 100%. Isn't that great what we can accomplish together? We've just changed the world with our cutting-edge argument.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-14   10:45:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#35)

Therefore, when someone offered the unspecified information to Trump Jr., saying it was “some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” and Trump Jr. responded, “if it’s what you say I love it,” Trump Jr. was soliciting the commission of a crime — the crime of a foreign national making a contribution of a thing of value in connection with a federal election — and such solicitation was itself a crime. As I argued Wednesday, though, reading “thing of value” to include such politically damaging information would outlaw a broad range of constitutionally protected opposition research. Such a reading would therefore make the statute unconstitutionally overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment; the statute must therefore be read to avoid such an unconstitutional result, by interpreting “thing of value” to exclude such information. Even if a narrower statute — for instance, one focused on speech by foreign governments and not just by foreign nationals — could forbid such communications (and I doubt that it can), this statute cannot be constitutionally read to do so.

But, thinking further about the case, I think there’s still more reason to reject the broad reading of “thing of value.”

1. First, the same statute bans not just foreigners’ “contributions” directly to campaigns, but also “expenditure[s]” of money or “thing[s] of value” by foreigners. Indeed, when it comes to foreigners spending money to buy ads, print leaflets and the like, that equation of contributions and expenditures is well settled: Foreigners can neither contribute money to a candidate nor spend their money to support or oppose a candidate.

And “expenditure” is defined to mean “any purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value, made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office” (emphasis added). There’s that phrase “thing of value” again — if “thing of value” for the purposes of the contribution ban includes giving valuable damaging political information to a campaign, then “anything of value” for purposes of the expenditure ban includes giving such information to anyone else, so long as the gift is intended to influence a federal election.

So, imagine that a foreigner — say, a Turkish businessman — thinks that President Trump did something bad (say, in building a Trump hotel in Turkey). Maybe the bad thing was criminal but not something the Turkish government wants to prosecute, or maybe it was just unsavory even if not criminal. In any case, the Turk assembles the evidence. It’s important evidence, which would be valuable for American voters to consider.

Under the “information as thing of value” theory, it would be a crime for the Turk to give the information to the Trump campaign, since that would be an illegal contribution. (That’s the very premise of the argument against Trump Jr. that I’m discussing.)

So instead, he decides to give it to the New York Times, hoping the Times writes about this and gives Trump the comeuppance that (in the Turkish businessman’s mind) Trump deserves. Yet that, too, is a crime (again, accepting the thing-of-value theory): The gift of the “thing of value” to the New York Times, done, “for the purpose of influencing [an] election for Federal office” is itself an illegal expenditure.

2. But wait: This doesn’t just risk criminal punishment for the foreign businessman. What if a New York Times reporter is approached by the Turk, who wants to set up a meeting, and the reporter says, “if it’s what you say I love it”? Then, by the same logic being applied to Trump Jr.’s response, that reporter is committing the crime of soliciting the illegal expenditure — he’s encouraging the businessman to illegally give a gift of something of value (information).

It’s possible that the reporter could avoid criminality by insisting on paying money for the information (which presumably would have to be the market value of the information, however one calculates this). That would presumably make the transfer not a gift and thus not an expenditure. But checkbook journalism is usually frowned on — yet the no-gifts-of-information reading of the statute would actually require such checkbook journalism.

There is a media exception to the ban on expenditures; that provision defines “any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication” as being not an “expenditure” (even though money is spent to publish such material). But, as I read it, that frees media outlets (even foreign-owned ones) to spend their money in speaking about candidates and frees domestic corporate-owned media outlets to speak to candidates about coverage (which might otherwise be an illegal corporate-coordinated expenditure). The media exception doesn’t let media outlets solicit “expenditures” by third parties.

3. Relatedly, say that a New York Times reporter calls highly placed people he knows in a foreign government and asks them to pass along any files they have on an American political candidate, assuming they can do so without violating any obligations to their own government. (Say, for instance, that the candidate had been an ambassador, or a secretary of state, and dealt extensively with foreign officials; and the foreign government is willing to report on the candidate’s performance.) That, too, would be soliciting the criminal gift of a thing of value (again, accepting the information-about- candidate-as-thing-of-value theory), and thus itself a crime.

4. Now let’s turn from foreigners to corporations. Though Citizens United held that corporations are free to make independent expenditures, corporations remain barred from making contributions to federal political candidates. And that prohibition applies — you guessed it — to “anything of value.” That means that if the Clinton campaign staff heard that some corporation had assembled information that showed misconduct on Trump’s part, and was willing to share it (maybe the corporation was involved in a business relationship gone sour), the staff would be committing a crime by asking for the information: It would be illegally soliciting an illegal campaign contribution of valuable information.

Again, perhaps I’m wrong in my reading of the statutes; please do let me know if that’s so. But as I see it, the implications of viewing politically damaging information about a candidate as a “thing of value” regulated by federal campaign finance laws would be extremely broad. Such a reading would end up suppressing a wide range of speech, not just to and by campaigns, but also speech by foreigners to American media outlets or advocacy groups.

It would certainly not be limited to solicitation of hacked material from foreign governments (since, again, there’s no evidence that Trump Jr. thought this material was hacked). It wouldn’t even be limited to solicitation of any material from foreign governments, since the statute applies equally to all foreigners (except those who are also U.S. citizens or U.S. permanent residents). As I noted, it wouldn’t be limited to solicitation of material by campaigns. If read this way, the statute would be unconstitutionally overbroad — so, as a legal matter, the statute ought to be read as not covering such distribution or solicitation of damaging information about a candidate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/14/the- strikingly-broad-consequences-of-the-argument-that-donald-trump-jr-broke- the-law-by-expressing-interest-in-russian-dirt-on-hillary-clinton/? utm_term=.118c35423730

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-07-14   14:16:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#39)

Therefore, when someone offered the unspecified information to Trump Jr., saying it was “some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” and Trump Jr. responded, “if it’s what you say I love it,” Trump Jr. was soliciting the commission of a crime — the crime of a foreign national making a contribution of a thing of value in connection with a federal election — and such solicitation was itself a crime.

Receiving stolen information is not a crime unless the theft is commissioned. Just about all of Wikileaks information was stolen by somebody. The NYT publication of the Pentagon Papers was lawful.

Donald Trump Jr. did not solicit
the wrongful obtainment of any real or imaginary document. He did not solicit
anyone to deliver any document. He said he would accept one or more documents which were already offered. There was no request by Donald Jr. That is not solicitation.

The lawsuit COMPLAINT filed by Common Cause may be viewed here.

At 5, ¶16

16. The Commission has defined “to solicit” by regulation to mean “to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.” 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(m); see also 11 C.F.R. § 11 0.20(a)(6) (for the purposes of the prohibition of solicitation of foreign national contributions, solicit has the same meaning as in 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(m)).

The regulation elaborates: A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation may be made directly or indirectly. The context includes the conduct of persons involved in the communication. Id.

At 6, ¶¶ 19-22:

19. Federal law prohibits any person from soliciting a contribution from a foreign national. 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(2), 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(g).

20. Donald Trump Jr. knowingly met with a foreign national, Natalia Veselnitskaya, for the purpose of soliciting a “contribution” as defined at 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i) (“anything of value ... for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office”) to his father’s presidential campaign committee, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. — namely damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

21. Donald Trump Jr. was an agent of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. with authority to solicit contributions on behalf of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and was doing so in his meeting with Ms. Veselnitskaya, as evidenced by the fact that he brought then-campaign chairman Paul J. Manafort to the meeting, which took place in the same building where Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. headquarters was and is located.

22. Therefore, based on published reports, there is reason to believe that Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and Donald Trump Jr. knowingly solicited a contribution from a foreign national in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(2) and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(g).

Donald Jr. did not agree to the meeting for the purpose of soliciting a contribution. He agreed to the meeting for the purpose of receiving something of unknown content that was being offered. Donald Jr. neither solicited nor received anything at the meeting. Paul Manafort being at a meeting does not show solicitation by Donald Jr. None of this adds up to evidence that Donald Jr. knowingly solicited a contribution from a foreign national.

This is little more than a press release in the form of a legal complaint.

Receiving official documents indicating Hillary Clinton had engaged in criminal misconduct would not be a crime. Passively agreeing to receive something freely and unconditionally offered is not solicitation.

The question is not one of solicitation but of unlawful receiving of a prohibited campaign donation.

See:

http://www.newsweek.com/why-donald-jrs-russia-meeting-was-bad-may-not-have-been-illegal-636992

Although some outstanding lawyers contend otherwise, I don’t think federal campaign finance law prohibits what Trump Jr. did.

If it did, then the Clinton campaign would also have broken the law had it sought information from non-U.S. nationals to investigate the claim that Trump Tower was built with undocumented workers. That interpretation of the law would raise very serious concerns concerning the free flow of political information.

The better view is that meeting with a foreign national to obtain information on a rival doesn’t generally violate federal campaign finance law, at least not without more. A different analysis should apply when items with a demonstrable monetary value are given or sought, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here given the vague description of the information offered to Trump Jr.

http://ethics.ks.gov/CFAForms/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.html

Question: What is an in-kind contribution?
Answer: An in-kind contribution is not a monetary donation, but something of value donated to a campaign or committee which has been paid for by another person. An example of an in-kind contribution would be a candidate who pays for a newspaper ad with personal funds or pays his or her filing fee with personal funds. If these examples were monetary donations, the candidate would have placed money into the campaign bank account and written a campaign check to the newspaper for the ad and the Secretary of State or county election officer for the filing fee. Because personal funds were used to make these expenditures, they are considered in-kind contributions from the candidate. Other examples of in-kind contributions are postage stamps donated by a friend, a discount on a printing order from a printing company for campaign brochures, or food and beverages paid for by someone else for a fundraiser held on the candidate’s behalf.

Receiving dirt on the other candidate is not an in-kind donation.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-14   16:36:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: nolu chan (#41)

"Receiving stolen information is not a crime unless the theft is commissioned."

Is that what Don Jr.'s being accused of? Receiving stolen information? Who came up with that garbage?

I thought he he was being accused of attempting to conspire with a foreign power to influence a U.S. Presidential election.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-14   17:36:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#42)

Is that what Don Jr.'s being accused of? Receiving stolen information? Who came up with that garbage?

I thought he he was being accused of attempting to conspire with a foreign power to influence a U.S. Presidential election.

I quoted from the COMPLAINT what he is accused of:

22. Therefore, based on published reports, there is reason to believe that Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and Donald Trump Jr. knowingly solicited a contribution from a foreign national in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(2) and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(g).

Trump Jr. did not solicit anything.

Not every violation of law is a crime. The citation of law is to election law, not a criminal statute. The citation to CFR relates FEC regulations, not law.

2015 US Code
Title 52 - Voting and Elections (Sections 10101 - 30146)
Subtitle III - Federal Campaign Finance (Sections 30101 - 30146)
Chapter 301 - Federal Election Campaigns (Sections 30101 - 30146)
Subchapter I - Disclosure of Federal Campaign Funds (Sections 30101 - 30126)
Sec. 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-14   22:57:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 48.

        There are no replies to Comment # 48.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 48.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com