re: John Brennan is starting to panic BIGLY

So letting the incumbent party utilize the federal law enforcement agency to spy on the political opponent is great for the democracy.


Thanks Mr Brennan, you are special kind of stupid.

quote:

---

§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

---

Thank you.

Now was that really so hard?

Ok. SEE that wasnt so difficult, arse munch. Now show the evidence that Trump violated that law with INTENT.

quote:

---

You and I have discussed the exact section of the code before in the context of what constitutes "something of value" which is required of the statute.

---

Then it is strange that you would say Trump's people could be indicted. If we have already discussed this, you would know that the only time information was considered something of value (for purposes of the code section) was when it was information that is usually sold in the ordinary course of business of the person sharing the information. (In the singular case it was polling data)

If we have previously discussed this you would see that the case law does not suppport that the actions of Trumps people satisfy the requirements of the code Section.

So....you either forgot the conversation, you lied about the conversation, or you didn't understand the conversation. My guess is the latter.

He won't cry. He will genuinely think he made some sort of point.

I have given specific citations. I have showed him that his interpretation would require an interpretation of the law that has literally never preciously occurred. He doesn't understand it.