re: Special Counsel Mueller Impanels Washington Grand Jury in Russia Probe

quote:

---

There are certainly debates as to whether Trump Jr.'s emails for instance constitutes solicitation, but a credible case can and has been made by legal scholars I have read. Doesn't mean Mueller or the courts will necessarily agree.

---

If Junior's e-mails constitute "solicitation" then every political opposition research firm is breaking the law every campaign cycle. I say shut them all down because they are "illegally" digging up dirt for profit.

quote:

---

That's the law that Congress let expire in 1999 (with Clinton's full approval). None of them liked it because it gave the special prosecutor far too much power in open-ended investigations. No politician wants to be subject to political witch hunts, which all special counsels are by their very nature.

Congress is free to reauthorize the law if they so choose, but they are opening a can of worms. Democrats are not immune from having these witch hunts opened on them.

---

All fair points. I would personally prefer the arrangement and appointments of special counsels stay as is. But my point is that the irony of Trump's smoke blowing and brick laying to justify firing Mueller and break the norms of the DOJ/executive relationship, is that it is forcing and strengthening the rationale for congress to seek those sort of laws that both sides don't particularly like. The secondary effect of course is that it would likely open the door to even broader authority and autonomy to investigate Trump.

quote:

---

We're not privy to anything Mueller might have. I mean, he could be obstructing the SC itself. He obviously lied about the Russian meeting. Who knows what else comes up, especially now that the scope seems to be expanding.

I mean, I guess you could argue Trump technically can't obstruct justice, but charges could be made.

---

its not like mueller would be able to manufacture stuff this fast either. If he has a grand jury operating (well two, as Flynn was already being investigated), then there is probably something there. Or they think something is there.

quote:

---

If Junior's e-mails constitute "solicitation" then every political opposition research firm is breaking the law every campaign cycle. I say shut them all down because they are "illegally" digging up dirt for profit.

---

This is the one I most often see cited in regards to the solicitation angle. It is specifically in regards to foreign nationals.
LINK

Paraphrasing the logic here, but the crux is that Trump Jr. operated under the assumption these people represented the Russian government, and he made clear indications he desired this information and made a gesture indicating he felt the information would be something of material value to the campaign.

Now there are counter arguments. And ultimately what matters is if Mueller finds the case credible, and more importantly, if the courts do. Assuming as you say Trump doesn't try to pardon him first if that were looking like it could happen.

It's happening

Ah yes. The crux of it comes down to what a donation is. 11 CFR 110.20 points us to 11 CFR 110.2 for a definition.

It says there: payment, gift, subscription, loan, advance deposit, or anything of value given to a person.

Hmmm. Ok. So I guess the argument here is that something non-monetary could be "something of value".

There is only one case ever that considered assigning value to a non-monetary transfer under the FECA. It was in the dicta of an administrative hearing. It said a polling company hat normally charges a set fee for their work product giving that work product to one candidate could be considered something of value because they would normally sell it to that candidate.

The FECA also states that its statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the accused.

So...a court would have to liberally construe the law in favor of Donald jr...and for the first time ever determine a non monetary transfer is something of value....and determine that trump solicited this transfer by accepting the meeting...

Yeah. I could see how some legal scholars could make that argument.

quote:

---

Are you an attorney? Because if I remember correctly BBONDS25 is one. It's probably not a smart idea to argue law with a lawyer unless you happen to be one yourself.

---

Meh

A lot of lawyers are dumb

99% of lawyers know nothing about campaign finance laws

It's a reasonable risk to take

What the frick did you just say, you little bitch? I'll have you know I passed the bar top of my class at Harvard Law, and I've been involved in numerous lawsuits which were settled outside of the courtroom, and I have over 300 won cases. I am trained in debate and I'm the top attorney in the entire US legal system. You are nothing but just another defendant. I will sue you into oblivion with repercussions the likes of which has never been seen before in the courtroom, mark my fricking words. You think you can get away with asking that shite to me over the internet? Think again, fricker. As we speak I am contacting the cops in my pocket across the USA and your IP is being stolen right now so you better patent that shite, maggot. The shite that sues you into the ground and makes you want to kill yourself. You're fricking broke, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can sue you with over seven hundred ways, and that's without picking up a legal book. Not only am I extensively trained in cross-examination, but I have access to the entire long dick of the law, and I will use it to its full extent to sue your arse into the ground, you little shite. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fricking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shite bylaws all over you and you will drown in attorneys fees. You're fricking dead, kiddo.