- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What is "value?"
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:58 pm to djmicrobe
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:58 pm to djmicrobe
quote:You need to link this because it seems like an outright fake news. The Dossier was given to media outlets across the country. And since it couldn't be verified, only one of them (Buzzard) lacked the integrity to publish it.
The info was given to a person who was a Britishvspy by members of the Russian gov't. This was given to the HRC campaign for money.
Where is the investigation?
Since we know it was sent to the media outlets, it doesn't make sense to pay for it. So you'll need to actually back in the statement.
1
Posted on 7/13/17 at 12:08 am to BBONDS25
Thanks. That's interesting and in keeping with some other things I'm reading. Seems like it would be a somewhat novel application and not a slam-dunk.
From the Times today:
Collusion and Trump Campaign
In any case, I think the facts as the weeks and months pass will make our current knowledge seem quaint.
From the Times today:
quote:
Robert Bauer, an election-law specialist who served as White House counsel in the Obama administration, argued that this statute covers the Russian government’s paying its spies and hackers to collect and disseminate negative information about Mrs. Clinton to help Mr. Trump win the 2016 election.
“There are firms in the United States that do negative research and sell it to campaigns,” Mr. Bauer argued. “There is no way to take information someone has compiled using resources and say it’s just information and dirt. It’s valuable information and counts as a contribution when given to or distributed for the benefit of a campaign.”
But Orin S. Kerr, a George Washington University professor and former federal prosecutor, said the notion struck him as a stretch.
“The phrase ‘contribution or donation’ sounds like a gift to help fund the campaign or give them something they otherwise would buy,” Mr. Kerr argued. “If that is the standard, that doesn’t seem to be met, based on what we know so far, because this wasn’t something that someone else could have gathered that was for sale in a market or would be otherwise purchasable.”
Collusion and Trump Campaign
In any case, I think the facts as the weeks and months pass will make our current knowledge seem quaint.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 12:11 am to RedStickBR
So where did he solicit anything? If there was any solicitation going on, it was this woman soliciting the Trump campaign. Now if Don Jr sends word to a foreign govt that he is looking for dirt on Hillary and in exchange the Trump admin would deal favorably with them in the future, that is solicitaion.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 12:16 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
You need to link this because it seems like an outright fake news. The Dossier was given to media outlets across the country. And since it couldn't be verified, only one of them (Buzzard) lacked the integrity to publish it.
They didn't publish it because they knew it was fake. It became newsworthy, despite being fake after James Comey briefed Trump about it.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 4:42 am to diplip
Literally every example they list there is related to a monetary exchange. That's not to say it's an all-inclusive list, but it seems to corroborate the value being talked about here is mostly if not entirely concerned with monetary value.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 7:39 am to RedStickBR
quote:
It is more reasonable that "value" here means "monetary value."
If I were a defense attorney, I would certainly argue intent.
But the authors of the law had an opportunity to add the word "monetary" before the word "value" and deliberately chose not to. Legislators legislate with purpose and they do it for a living. That doesn't of course mean that they are very good at it.
But in my opinion, the meaning is more broad than that.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 7:42 am to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
It became newsworthy, despite being fake after James Comey briefed Trump about it.
Comey knew it was fake. He also knew if Trump was briefed on it, it would be a backdoor way of allowing the media to cover it.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 7:45 am to RedStickBR
quote:
Literally every example they list there is related to a monetary exchange. That's not to say it's an all-inclusive list, but it seems to corroborate the value being talked about here is mostly if not entirely concerned with monetary value.
Yep. So does the rest of the language in the statue. The word value really should be defined in the statute. As written, it is not as clear as it should be.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 7:52 am to Willie Stroker
I think the interpretation of "value" here is ripe for review. I'd enjoy following that case, and agree it could go either way. While the letter of the law is ambiguous, the spirit of the law seems more transactional; but you're right that the authors left it open for interpretation and a very broad interpretation could mean that just about anything could be construed as value.
As others have pointed out, the "solicit" language is also interesting. Depending on the joint interpretation of "solicit" and "value," you could even argue that calling a foreign official to give a speech on your behalf (something said official usually charges for) could be a violation, even if they say no.
As others have pointed out, the "solicit" language is also interesting. Depending on the joint interpretation of "solicit" and "value," you could even argue that calling a foreign official to give a speech on your behalf (something said official usually charges for) could be a violation, even if they say no.
This post was edited on 7/13/17 at 7:53 am
Posted on 7/13/17 at 9:08 am to RedStickBR
quote:
" Let's be honest: that's clearly too broad to pass the smell test here. It is more reasonable that "value" here means "monetary value."
Yes, the way they are trying to apply it to Jr appears to be incorrect and would cause major issues for lots of people. The Post has a pretty good article on it.
quote:
But in any event, the statute as written is much broader than the facts of this case, and no limiting construction can limit it just to foreign governments, or just to very high level and sensitive information. If Rick’s theory of the statute is right, then political candidates would find it much harder to investigate what their opponents did in foreign countries, or did to foreigners here in the U.S. And that suggests to me that this theory can’t be right.
LINK
Posted on 7/13/17 at 4:42 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Like paying for a dossier ?
Not a good example. You sort of have it the wrong way around, at least as to the discussion of receiving something of value.
quote:
having a ukranian employed
Again, I don't see how that is an example of receiving something of value as a contribution.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 4:46 pm to RedStickBR
quote:
The crux of the "Don Jr. broke the law" claim comes down to one word - "value."
I think it depends on what was passed, no?
Posted on 7/13/17 at 4:55 pm to Bullethead88
You bring up a good point. They didn't pay for the dossier, right? Someone else did. I guess that would by definition make it something of value. I sure hope it doesn't come out that the DNC possessed the dossier. Or tried to get their hands in it prior to or after McCain giving it to the FBI.
You are right, though, hiring a ukranian is collusion not a FECA violation. Not illegal. Just exactly what the left wants Trump impeached for.
You are right, though, hiring a ukranian is collusion not a FECA violation. Not illegal. Just exactly what the left wants Trump impeached for.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 5:19 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
DawgfaninCa
quote:
Being able to hit the enter button a couple of dozen times may seem clever to you, but it doesn't require any brain cells to do it. Hell, my dog sitting by me here on the sofa occasionally reaches his paw over and does it while I'm typing. So congrats...you're as clever as he is.
Meh, the empty space represents "nothing" which was what I was saying Don Jr. offered the Russian Lawyer.
I hope your dog is smart enough to get the point I was making by having empty space because you sure aren't.
quote:
The fact that you're asking what Junior offered shows how clueless you are. Junior made no offer. Or have you not actually read the emails? Goldstone made the offer, which Junior jumped on. Go back and read his email. Oh sure, it didn't pan out because the dumbass got scammed. But if you can't see written in that email what Russia was getting in return for Junior and the campaign's use of the dirt he thought he was getting, then you really don't have any brain cells.
You missed the point why I asked the question which was so that I could answer the question at the bottom of my post and the answer was "nothing" so you are the one who was clueless not me.
Go read the emails again, comrade, and show me where Don Jr. offered to give the Russian lawyer anything in exchange for the dirt on Hillary.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 5:22 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
They didn't pay for the dossier, right? Someone else did. I guess that would by definition make it something of value.
I thought someone else paid to get it started and it is alleged that the DNC paid to keep the investigation going. If they paid for the end product not sure what statute that would violate.
quote:
You are right, though, hiring a ukranian is collusion not a FECA violation. Not illegal. Just exactly what the left wants Trump impeached for.
The difference is one is getting it from a foreign individual and the other is obtaining it from a foreign government. If you get it from a foreign government, there is a much greater chance (almost a presumption) that the information one would receive from a government would have been illicitly procured.
I'm not sure how that difference would play depending what statute is involved, but I think the difference is material.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 5:31 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
The crux of the "Don Jr. broke the law" claim comes down to one word - "value."
quote:
I think it depends on what was passed, no?
The dirt on Hillary was not "something of value" because Don Jr. offered to give the Russian lawyer nothing in exchange for the dirt on Hillary.
This post was edited on 7/13/17 at 5:32 pm
Posted on 7/13/17 at 5:39 pm to Remote Controlled
quote:
Good book. The question of what value is gets discussed.
That book was read by every "hippie".
You weren't a real "hippie" until you read it.
This post was edited on 7/13/17 at 5:40 pm
Posted on 7/13/17 at 5:42 pm to Bullethead88
He was a ukranian agent.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 6:42 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
He was a ukranian agent.
Who he was a Ukrainian agent?
Posted on 7/13/17 at 6:44 pm to mahdragonz
quote:
Donny Jr replied to an email
What did he offer?
or,
What was the value of what was offered to him?
Either one. Take your pick.
This post was edited on 7/13/17 at 6:45 pm
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News