- 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 8:32 pm to RedStickBR
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:32 pm to RedStickBR
There is only one opinion ever that states (in dicta as it wasn't an issue) that information could have "value" that fits the element of the code. It had to do with a hypothetical situation where a polling company that GAVE one side its results and recommendations for actions and not the other. It was considered value (in the dicta) because such information is usually paid for by campaigns to polling companies.
There are zero other times value has been applied to information. There is also a quantifiable value associated with the gift from a polling company because they are in the business of providing those services for a fee.
The Dems try to stretch that one instance of dicta to mean that all info could be considered "value". It is a huge stretch. Especially because violations of FECA are to be construed liberally in favor of the accused.
What this means is that a court would have to find for the first time ever that in the case at issue that information constitutes value...and for the first time ever in any case that information not easily quantifiable constitutes value. All while considering the facts liberally in favor of Trump.
I have no doubt there is a court out there somewhere that may agree. That would be a political ruling, however, which should be very scary to everyone. Pushing this narrative is extremely short sighted.
The Russians stated goal, according to the IC report constantly cited by democrats, was to instill doubt in the electoral process of the US. The democrats reaction and "muh Russians" has done more to accomplish Russia's goals than they could have ever hoped.
There are zero other times value has been applied to information. There is also a quantifiable value associated with the gift from a polling company because they are in the business of providing those services for a fee.
The Dems try to stretch that one instance of dicta to mean that all info could be considered "value". It is a huge stretch. Especially because violations of FECA are to be construed liberally in favor of the accused.
What this means is that a court would have to find for the first time ever that in the case at issue that information constitutes value...and for the first time ever in any case that information not easily quantifiable constitutes value. All while considering the facts liberally in favor of Trump.
I have no doubt there is a court out there somewhere that may agree. That would be a political ruling, however, which should be very scary to everyone. Pushing this narrative is extremely short sighted.
The Russians stated goal, according to the IC report constantly cited by democrats, was to instill doubt in the electoral process of the US. The democrats reaction and "muh Russians" has done more to accomplish Russia's goals than they could have ever hoped.
This post was edited on 7/12/17 at 8:38 pm
2
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:33 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
So what?
Don Jr. didn't offer to give the Russian attorney any money or anything worth money for the information.
quote:
One could make the argument...and I'm not necessarily saying I agree...that by using the information to defeat Clinton and put Trump in the White House, Russia could benefit from possible relaxed sanctions, etc., etc., and I'm sure someone could put a possible dollar value on the impact on the Russian economy.
You can argue that but you would lose.
Is the impact on the Russian economy intrinsically worth $1 million, $10 million, $1 billion?
The impact on the Russian economy does not have intrinsic monetary worth like a car, diamond ring, house, etc. has which would be considered "of value" and a bribe if given in exchange for information.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:39 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Do a little googling and you can probably find hundreds of articles about prostitution stings where johns solicit female undercover cops. Happens all the time.
What did Don Jr. offer the Russian attorney in exchange for the information he was seeking?
That's correct.
Nothing.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:43 pm to the808bass
quote:
What if I offer your non-profit $1M? Or I offer your husband $500k for a speech? Soliciting or no?
He isn't getting anywhere near that landmine with a reply. 
Posted on 7/12/17 at 9:12 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
DawgfaninCa
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.
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.
This post was edited on 7/12/17 at 9:14 pm
Posted on 7/12/17 at 9:23 pm to RedStickBR
"Value" is whatever the Democrat Judge says it is.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 9:27 pm to BamaGradinTn
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.
Most importantly, he did not request anything, which means he did not solicit anything...
Posted on 7/12/17 at 9:29 pm to Champagne
This is what I fear, unfortunately. It's extremely short sighted.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 9:31 pm to RedStickBR
quote:
What is "value?"
Good book. The question of what value is gets discussed.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 10:18 pm to dcbl
You raise a good point. Solicit to me means someone actively trying to engage others for something, although the definition could be interpreted as being broader than that. To be clear, though, Don Jr. was the one who was contacted here; not the other way around.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 10:22 pm to BBONDS25
Great analysis. If the polling cos. are in the business of providing (for a fee) the very thing they are giving away for free, I'd argue that's a like-kind exchange that had a very easily quantifiable value. Answering a call from someone and then hearing them out ... not so much.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 10:27 pm to Remote Controlled
quote:Read that last year. Great book, and it makes a lot of confusing philosophical concepts much easier to understand.
Good book. The question of what value is gets discussed.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 10:30 pm to RedStickBR
Going with anything that could possibly appear is if it would trip up a stumbling bumbling fumbling collapsing into the van ignoring Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio Hillionaire.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 10:34 pm to RedStickBR
quote:
You raise a good point. Solicit to me means someone actively trying to engage others for something, although the definition could be interpreted as being broader than that. To be clear, though, Don Jr. was the one who was contacted here; not the other way around.
the definition, as it relates to federal election campaign finances is laid out explicitly in the CFR you linked earlier in this thread...
quote:
(m)To solicit. For the purposes of part 300, to solicit means to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. 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. A solicitation does not include mere statements of political support or mere guidance as to the applicability of a particular law or regulation. (1) The following types of communications constitute solicitations: (i) A communication that provides a method of making a contribution or donation, regardless of the communication. This includes, but is not limited to, providing a separate card, envelope, or reply device that contains an address to which funds may be sent and allows contributors or donors to indicate the dollar amount of their contribution or donation to the candidate, political committee, or other organization. (ii) A communication that provides instructions on how or where to send contributions or donations, including providing a phone number specifically dedicated to facilitating the making of contributions or donations. However, a communication does not, in and of itself, satisfy the definition of “to solicit” merely because it includes a mailing address or phone number that is not specifically dedicated to facilitating the making of contributions or donations. (iii) A communication that identifies a Web address where the Web page displayed is specifically dedicated to facilitating the making of a contribution or donation, or automatically redirects the Internet user to such a page, or exclusively displays a link to such a page. However, a communication does not, in and of itself, satisfy the definition of “to solicit” merely because it includes the address of a Web page that is not specifically dedicated to facilitating the making of a contribution or donation. (2) The following statements constitute solicitations: (i) “Please give $100,000 to Group X.” (ii) “It is important for our State party to receive at least $100,000 from each of you in this election.” (iii) “Group X has always helped me financially in my elections. Keep them in mind this fall.” (iv) “X is an effective State party organization; it needs to obtain as many $100,000 donations as possible.” (v) “Giving $100,000 to Group X would be a very smart idea.” (vi) “Send all contributions to the following address * * *.” (vii) “I am not permitted to ask for contributions, but unsolicited contributions will be accepted at the following address * * *.” (viii) “Group X is having a fundraiser this week; you should go.” (ix) “You have reached the limit of what you may contribute directly to my campaign, but you can further help my campaign by assisting the State party.” (x) A candidate hands a potential donor a list of people who have contributed to a group and the amounts of their contributions. The candidate says, “I see you are not on the list.” (xi) “I will not forget those who contribute at this crucial stage.” (xii) “The candidate will be very pleased if we can count on you for $10,000.” (xiii) “Your contribution to this campaign would mean a great deal to the entire party and to me personally.” (xiv) Candidate says to potential donor: “The money you will help us raise will allow us to communicate our message to the voters through Labor Day.” (xv) “I appreciate all you've done in the past for our party in this State. Looking ahead, we face some tough elections. I'd be very happy if you could maintain the same level of financial support for our State party this year.” (xvi) The head of Group X solicits a contribution from a potential donor in the presence of a candidate. The donor asks the candidate if the contribution to Group X would be a good idea and would help the candidate's campaign. The candidate nods affirmatively. (3) The following statements do not constitute solicitations: (i) During a policy speech, the candidate says: “Thank you for your support of the Democratic Party.” (ii) At a ticket-wide rally, the candidate says: “Thank you for your support of my campaign.” (iii) At a Labor Day rally, the candidate says: “Thank you for your past financial support of the Republican Party.” (iv) At a GOTV rally, the candidate says: “Thank you for your continuing support.” (v) At a ticket-wide rally, the candidate says: “It is critical that we support the entire Democratic ticket in November.” (vi) A Federal officeholder says: “Our Senator has done a great job for us this year. The policies she has vigorously promoted in the Senate have really helped the economy of the State.” (vii) A candidate says: “Thanks to your contributions we have been able to support our President, Senator and Representative during the past election cycle.”
apologies for the format.
here is LINK
Its not up for debate, and its not remotely related to the the definition of solicitation in the context of prostitution which most people are more familiar with
Posted on 7/12/17 at 10:39 pm to RedStickBR
Posted on 7/12/17 at 10:51 pm to dcbl
quote:
Nice link, does sharing info constitute a donation? Dershowitz says no....
It depends. Did the person pay money to acquire the info? Then if that person gives it to you, then it is something of value.
Polling information has been given as an example.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:29 pm to BBONDS25
Really good post. I saw that case discussed.
Curious to get your take on some of these that Rick Hasen (from Electionlawblog) has recently written about.
The "things of value" discussion is in the 5th graf and it links his blog posts which include the FEC and other rulings.
Rick Hasen
Curious to get your take on some of these that Rick Hasen (from Electionlawblog) has recently written about.
quote:
The Federal Election Commission has said that providing free polling information to a candidate is a thing of value. It has said that when Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform gave a list of conservative activists in 37 states to the Bush–Cheney campaign in 2004, this was a thing of value which had to be reported by the campaign, even if the list was publicly posted on the group’s website. It said that Canadian campaign literature which an American candidate wanted to borrow from in his own campaign is a thing of value, even if its value is “nominal or difficult to ascertain.” It said that opposition research provided by a political group to Republican candidates can count as an in-kind contribution. And a federal court, in the prosecution of New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, said that a thing of value need only have subjective value to the recipient.
The "things of value" discussion is in the 5th graf and it links his blog posts which include the FEC and other rulings.
Rick Hasen
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:31 pm to Bullethead88
Like paying for a dossier or having a ukranian employed?
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:40 pm to TigerDoc
I would say that he is pulling dicta from a totally unrelated case and a totally distinguishable case to try and make a case against Trump jr. Fact is...FECA is the law regarding election campaigns. The definitions are listed in the code. Courts have heard litigation and the only court to ever consider info was a hypothetical about polling results because they are easily quantifiable. Using citizens united and a person "donating" flyers for under fmv is not in the same realm as what happened. Not to mention accusations are to be liberally construed in favor of the accused.
If Donald jr is to be found guilty of violating FECA it would take a court stretching the definition of contribution to levels never seen before and ignoring the fact the court is to liberally construe facts in favor of he accused. It could happen. But as I mentioned, it would be a political decision...not one based on the law.
ETA: it would also be extremely short-sighted.
If Donald jr is to be found guilty of violating FECA it would take a court stretching the definition of contribution to levels never seen before and ignoring the fact the court is to liberally construe facts in favor of he accused. It could happen. But as I mentioned, it would be a political decision...not one based on the law.
ETA: it would also be extremely short-sighted.
This post was edited on 7/12/17 at 11:43 pm
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:49 pm to RedStickBR
The Ukranian gov't gave a Clinton campaign "operative" info that damaged the Trump campaign. What was the value of that info? The operative was seeking info from the Ukranian gov't; that is, colluding with them.
Where is the Special Counsel investigating this collusion.
The info in the "Russian Dossier" alleging that Trump was doing things in a Russian hotel was paid for by the Clinton campaign. The info was given to a person who was a British spy by members of the Russian gov't. This was given to the HRC campaign for money.
Where is the investigation?
Where is the Special Counsel investigating this collusion.
The info in the "Russian Dossier" alleging that Trump was doing things in a Russian hotel was paid for by the Clinton campaign. The info was given to a person who was a British spy by members of the Russian gov't. This was given to the HRC campaign for money.
Where is the investigation?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News