Whistle Blower Outted -- It is a Brennen era operative....

[bripat9643]

Investigating the possibility of criminal conduct is not a thing of personal value. If it was Obama, Hillary and half of the people in their inner circle would be in jail.

Stop with the ignorant shit

Eliminating potential competition from the election they're both running in is a thing of value.

Not according to election law.

Says you, but you're a confirmed fucking moron.

Says the chief of the federal election commission.

No, says you offering us your venerably clueless pseudo-legal gibberish where you make up inane babble about the law and then insist that our government is bound to whatever you make up.

Um, no. It isn't.

In comparison to your comic misunderstandings of the law, we have what the head of the FEC *actually* said:

"It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a US election. "

So much for your pseudo-legal gibberish. It doesn't amount to much, does it?

Damaging information is not "a thing of value," according to campaign finance regulations, you stupid lying homo.

Damaging Information​

What, then, of the allegations that Trump Jr. violated campaign finance laws? Section 30121 of Title 52 makes it illegal for a “foreign national…to make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value…in connection with a Federal…election” (emphasis added), and also makes it illegal for someone “to solicit, accept, or receive” such a contribution or donation. Even assuming that Trump Jr’s enthusiastic response (“If it's what you say I love it”) to the offer of “damaging information” about Hillary Clinton could qualify as a “solicitation”—itself quite a stretch—or that such information was actually provided to Trump Jr., contrary to explicit denials by both sides of attendees at the meeting, damaging information about one’s political opponent is not a “thing of value” as that phrase is used in the campaign finance laws.


First, the same phrase, “thing of value” (or more precisely, “anything of value”) is part of the definition of “contribution” that applies to all provisions of federal campaign finance law. If freely offered opposition research qualified as a “thing of value,” every candidate and campaign committee who receives such opposition research from anyone—and they all do—would be a serial violator of the campaign finance laws, because that routine provision of opposition research information would then have to be reported as an in-kind contribution on their federal campaign finance reports. As even a quick perusal of campaign finance reports available on the Federal Election Commission’s website will show, none of them do so.


Second, even if the phrase, “anything of value,” in the statutory definition of “contribution” could be interpreted broadly enough to include “damaging information” on one’s opponent, the definition of “contribution” also explicitly excludes “the value of services provided without compensation by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee.” Voluntarily collecting information about a political opponent and offering it to the campaign is therefore not a “contribution,” even if it could be treated as a “thing of value.” Notably, this exception applies not just to U.S. citizens but to foreign nationals as well, who are allowed to volunteer on U.S. political campaigns.


Finally, the real legal problem here is not on the Trump side of the equation, but on the Clinton side. It is important to recall just what “damaging information about Hillary Clinton” the Russian temptress is alleged to have offered. According to Donald Trump Jr. himself, Veselnitskaya claimed “that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton.” That’s not just a “thing of value,” but an outright cash contribution, illegal under any interpretation of the campaign finance laws. Maybe Tim Keane should be more careful about throwing stones when he himself may live in a Russian-financed glass house.​

 

[Skylar]

Eliminating potential competition from the election they're both running in is a thing of value.

Not according to election law.

Says you, but you're a confirmed fucking moron.

Says the chief of the federal election commission.

No, says you offering us your venerably clueless pseudo-legal gibberish where you make up inane babble about the law and then insist that our government is bound to whatever you make up.

Um, no. It isn't.

In comparison to your comic misunderstandings of the law, we have what the head of the FEC *actually* said:

"It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a US election. "

So much for your pseudo-legal gibberish. It doesn't amount to much, does it?

Damaging information is not "a thing of value," according to campaign finance regulations, you stupid lying homo.

Damaging Information​

What, then, of the allegations that Trump Jr. violated campaign finance laws? Section 30121 of Title 52 makes it illegal for a “foreign national…to make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value…in connection with a Federal…election” (emphasis added), and also makes it illegal for someone “to solicit, accept, or receive” such a contribution or donation. Even assuming that Trump Jr’s enthusiastic response (“If it's what you say I love it”) to the offer of “damaging information” about Hillary Clinton could qualify as a “solicitation”—itself quite a stretch—or that such information was actually provided to Trump Jr., contrary to explicit denials by both sides of attendees at the meeting, damaging information about one’s political opponent is not a “thing of value” as that phrase is used in the campaign finance laws.


First, the same phrase, “thing of value” (or more precisely, “anything of value”) is part of the definition of “contribution” that applies to all provisions of federal campaign finance law. If freely offered opposition research qualified as a “thing of value,” every candidate and campaign committee who receives such opposition research from anyone—and they all do—would be a serial violator of the campaign finance laws, because that routine provision of opposition research information would then have to be reported as an in-kind contribution on their federal campaign finance reports. As even a quick perusal of campaign finance reports available on the Federal Election Commission’s website will show, none of them do so.


Second, even if the phrase, “anything of value,” in the statutory definition of “contribution” could be interpreted broadly enough to include “damaging information” on one’s opponent, the definition of “contribution” also explicitly excludes “the value of services provided without compensation by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee.” Voluntarily collecting information about a political opponent and offering it to the campaign is therefore not a “contribution,” even if it could be treated as a “thing of value.” Notably, this exception applies not just to U.S. citizens but to foreign nationals as well, who are allowed to volunteer on U.S. political campaigns.


Finally, the real legal problem here is not on the Trump side of the equation, but on the Clinton side. It is important to recall just what “damaging information about Hillary Clinton” the Russian temptress is alleged to have offered. According to Donald Trump Jr. himself, Veselnitskaya claimed “that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton.” That’s not just a “thing of value,” but an outright cash contribution, illegal under any interpretation of the campaign finance laws. Maybe Tim Keane should be more careful about throwing stones when he himself may live in a Russian-financed glass house.​

You're not quoting the FEC. You're quoting a Chapman university law professor.

 

[Faun]

Says you, but you're a confirmed fucking moron.

Says the chief of the federal election commission.

No, says you offering us your venerably clueless pseudo-legal gibberish where you make up inane babble about the law and then insist that our government is bound to whatever you make up.

Um, no. It isn't.

In comparison to your comic misunderstandings of the law, we have what the head of the FEC *actually* said:

"It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a US election. "

So much for your pseudo-legal gibberish. It doesn't amount to much, does it?

Your quote doesn't define "thing of value" so it's a non sequitur.

You aren't good at this logic thing, are you?

LOLOLOLOL

Look at a fucking moron trying to argue that eliminating competition from the election isn't a thing of value.

Look at the asshole trying to compensate for something with his oversize crap. By the way illiterate one, Federal Elections Officials have already said no campaign law violation here. If you're going to be a liar, at least TRY to keep up with events. This can't be considered a thing of value, because there is zero guarantee of Biden getting the nomination. Brit so right. You're not very good at this. Or anything....

LOLOL

Idiots like you crack me up. What can I say?

And dumbfuck, you're lying about what federal election officials have said about this. Retweeted just today, from the chairwoman of the FEC...

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have had to lie like that.

 

[Faun]

Says the chief of the federal election commission.

LOLOLOL

Fucking moron....

Trump asking foreign countries for help against Biden violates law, Election Commission chair warns​

Are you ever not a fucking moron, fucking moron?

Ever???

He didn't seek foreign political help, as Hillary and a bunch of other Dims did. He's prosecuting a crook. Since when do crooks get a "get out of jail free" card just because they are running for office?

"He's prosecuting a crook."

You can keep lying about that but you still have provided zero evidence Biden got anything out of that.

If truth and facts were on your side, you wouldn't keep lying, fucking moron.

 

[Skylar]

Says the chief of the federal election commission.

LOLOLOL

Fucking moron....

Trump asking foreign countries for help against Biden violates law, Election Commission chair warns​

Are you ever not a fucking moron, fucking moron?

Ever???

He didn't seek foreign political help, as Hillary and a bunch of other Dims did. He's prosecuting a crook. Since when do crooks get a "get out of jail free" card just because they are running for office?

"He's prosecuting a crook."

You can keep lying about that but you still have provided zero evidence Biden got anything out of that.

If truth and facts were on your side, you wouldn't keep lying, fucking moron.

This is the same hapless soul that insisted that Flynn's right against self incrimination was violated because investigators asked him a few questions in his office, to which Flynn lied to in response.

So we're not exactly dealing with someone who has the slightest clue how the law actually works.

 

[Faun]

I would like to ask a favor THOUGH

"though" is the word that does him in. It demonstrates quid pro quo.

Pure speculation and subjectivism.

Suuure, uh-huh. Words actually do have meaning, even if you don't know what that meaning is...

though means but, however, nevertheless or in spite of.

 

[Skylar]

I would like to ask a favor THOUGH

"though" is the word that does him in. It demonstrates quid pro quo.

Pure speculation and subjectivism.

Suuure, uh-huh. Words actually do have meaning, even if you don't know what that meaning is...

though means but, however, nevertheless or in spite of.

yeah, the Ukrainians were definitely made to understand that cooperation with the US was held back until the 'corruption cases' (read Trump's baseless Crowdstrike and Biden conspiracies) investigations were complete.

Here's the Ukraine's summary of the call with Trump BEFORE the whistleblower complaint was publicly known.

"Donald Trump expressed his conviction that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve Ukraine’s image and complete the investigation of corruption cases that have held back cooperation between the Ukraine and the United States."

But US cooperation being held back until the 'corruption' investigations were complete was completely subjective, huh? Odd then that the Ukrainians got that exact message.

I mean, think of the odds! Apparently, 1 in 1.

 

[bripat9643]

Not according to election law.

Says you, but you're a confirmed fucking moron.

Says the chief of the federal election commission.

No, says you offering us your venerably clueless pseudo-legal gibberish where you make up inane babble about the law and then insist that our government is bound to whatever you make up.

Um, no. It isn't.

In comparison to your comic misunderstandings of the law, we have what the head of the FEC *actually* said:

"It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a US election. "

So much for your pseudo-legal gibberish. It doesn't amount to much, does it?

Your quote doesn't define "thing of value" so it's a non sequitur.

Says you, citing yourself. I'll go with the head of the FEC over your pseudo-legal gibbering any day. As would any rational person.

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about.

While the head or the FEC does.

Once again, dumbfuck, she doesn't define "thing of value." Furthermore, she's a Democrat, which means she's a lying douchebag.

 

[Skylar]

Says you, but you're a confirmed fucking moron.

Says the chief of the federal election commission.

No, says you offering us your venerably clueless pseudo-legal gibberish where you make up inane babble about the law and then insist that our government is bound to whatever you make up.

Um, no. It isn't.

In comparison to your comic misunderstandings of the law, we have what the head of the FEC *actually* said:

"It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a US election. "

So much for your pseudo-legal gibberish. It doesn't amount to much, does it?

Your quote doesn't define "thing of value" so it's a non sequitur.

Says you, citing yourself. I'll go with the head of the FEC over your pseudo-legal gibbering any day. As would any rational person.

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about.

While the head or the FEC does.

Once again, dumbfuck, she doesn't define "thing of value." Furthermore, she's a Democrat, which means she's a lying douchebag.

And where does she limit 'things of value' to donations? She specifically cites as illegal the solicitation of 'foreign assistance'. And 'foreign interference, influence and intrigue'.

None of which are limited to donations.

 

[bripat9643]

I would like to ask a favor THOUGH

"though" is the word that does him in. It demonstrates quid pro quo.

Pure speculation and subjectivism.

Suuure, uh-huh. Words actually do have meaning, even if you don't know what that meaning is...

though means but, however, nevertheless or in spite of.

yeah, the Ukrainians were definitely made to understand that cooperation with the US was held back until the 'corruption cases' (read Trump's baseless Crowdstrike and Biden conspiracies) investigations were complete.

Here's the Ukraine's summary of the call with Trump BEFORE the whistleblower complaint was publicly known.

"Donald Trump expressed his conviction that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve Ukraine’s image and complete the investigation of corruption cases that have held back cooperation between the Ukraine and the United States."

But US cooperation being held back until the 'corruption' investigations were complete was completely subjective, huh? Odd then that the Ukrainians got that exact message.

I mean, think of the odds! Apparently, 1 in 1.

You're inferring a conclusion. Your inferences are worthless in a court of law. Meanwhile you imagine Biden didn't do anything.

You are clearly suffering from brain damage.

 

[edward37]

Says you, but you're a confirmed fucking moron.

Says the chief of the federal election commission.

No, says you offering us your venerably clueless pseudo-legal gibberish where you make up inane babble about the law and then insist that our government is bound to whatever you make up.

Um, no. It isn't.

In comparison to your comic misunderstandings of the law, we have what the head of the FEC *actually* said:

"It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a US election. "

So much for your pseudo-legal gibberish. It doesn't amount to much, does it?

Your quote doesn't define "thing of value" so it's a non sequitur.

Says you, citing yourself. I'll go with the head of the FEC over your pseudo-legal gibbering any day. As would any rational person.

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about.

While the head or the FEC does.

Once again, dumbfuck, she doesn't define "thing of value." Furthermore, she's a Democrat, which means she's a lying douchebag.

What does many rooms in trumps hotels paid for by foreigners and remaining empty mean??

 

[Skylar]

I would like to ask a favor THOUGH

"though" is the word that does him in. It demonstrates quid pro quo.

Pure speculation and subjectivism.

Suuure, uh-huh. Words actually do have meaning, even if you don't know what that meaning is...

though means but, however, nevertheless or in spite of.

yeah, the Ukrainians were definitely made to understand that cooperation with the US was held back until the 'corruption cases' (read Trump's baseless Crowdstrike and Biden conspiracies) investigations were complete.

Here's the Ukraine's summary of the call with Trump BEFORE the whistleblower complaint was publicly known.

"Donald Trump expressed his conviction that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve Ukraine’s image and complete the investigation of corruption cases that have held back cooperation between the Ukraine and the United States."

But US cooperation being held back until the 'corruption' investigations were complete was completely subjective, huh? Odd then that the Ukrainians got that exact message.

I mean, think of the odds! Apparently, 1 in 1.

You're inferring a conclusion. Your inferences are worthless in a court of law. Meanwhile you imagine Biden didn't do anything.

You are clearly suffering from brain damage.

You just argued that ONLY foreign donations are restricted in the solicitation prohibitions.

That's not what the FEC says. The FEC has never limited 'things of value' to donations. Nor does the FEC in its latest statement.

That would be you insisting that only donations are 'things of value'.

And as we've established, you know jack shit about the law.

 

[bripat9643]

Says the chief of the federal election commission.

No, says you offering us your venerably clueless pseudo-legal gibberish where you make up inane babble about the law and then insist that our government is bound to whatever you make up.

Um, no. It isn't.

In comparison to your comic misunderstandings of the law, we have what the head of the FEC *actually* said:

"It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a US election. "

So much for your pseudo-legal gibberish. It doesn't amount to much, does it?

Your quote doesn't define "thing of value" so it's a non sequitur.

Says you, citing yourself. I'll go with the head of the FEC over your pseudo-legal gibbering any day. As would any rational person.

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about.

While the head or the FEC does.

Once again, dumbfuck, she doesn't define "thing of value." Furthermore, she's a Democrat, which means she's a lying douchebag.

What does many rooms in trumps hotels paid for by foreigners and remaining empty mean??

It means nothing, since it didn't happen

 

[Skylar]

No, says you offering us your venerably clueless pseudo-legal gibberish where you make up inane babble about the law and then insist that our government is bound to whatever you make up.

Um, no. It isn't.

In comparison to your comic misunderstandings of the law, we have what the head of the FEC *actually* said:

"It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a US election. "

So much for your pseudo-legal gibberish. It doesn't amount to much, does it?

Your quote doesn't define "thing of value" so it's a non sequitur.

Says you, citing yourself. I'll go with the head of the FEC over your pseudo-legal gibbering any day. As would any rational person.

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about.

While the head or the FEC does.

Once again, dumbfuck, she doesn't define "thing of value." Furthermore, she's a Democrat, which means she's a lying douchebag.

What does many rooms in trumps hotels paid for by foreigners and remaining empty mean??

It means nothing, since it didn't happen

Says you, citing you.

Meanwhile......

A Trump hotel mystery: Giant reservations followed by empty rooms

 

[bripat9643]

"though" is the word that does him in. It demonstrates quid pro quo.

Pure speculation and subjectivism.

Suuure, uh-huh. Words actually do have meaning, even if you don't know what that meaning is...

though means but, however, nevertheless or in spite of.

yeah, the Ukrainians were definitely made to understand that cooperation with the US was held back until the 'corruption cases' (read Trump's baseless Crowdstrike and Biden conspiracies) investigations were complete.

Here's the Ukraine's summary of the call with Trump BEFORE the whistleblower complaint was publicly known.

"Donald Trump expressed his conviction that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve Ukraine’s image and complete the investigation of corruption cases that have held back cooperation between the Ukraine and the United States."

But US cooperation being held back until the 'corruption' investigations were complete was completely subjective, huh? Odd then that the Ukrainians got that exact message.

I mean, think of the odds! Apparently, 1 in 1.

You're inferring a conclusion. Your inferences are worthless in a court of law. Meanwhile you imagine Biden didn't do anything.

You are clearly suffering from brain damage.

You just argued that ONLY foreign donations are restricted in the solicitation prohibitions.

That's not what the FEC says. The FEC has never limited 'things of value' to donations. Nor does the FEC in its latest statement.

That would be you insisting that only donations are 'things of value'.

And as we've established, you know jack shit about the law.

I didn't argue anything of the sort, you moron homosexual. The FEC has always limited "a thing of value" to something tangible. Information has never been considered a thing of value. Even volunteering your services is not considered a thing of value. Should Komrade Schiff go to prison because leftwing lawyers helped this so-called "whistleblower?" According to you, that's a campaign contribution.


The problem with boneheads like you is that you never consider the implications of your daft legal theories in the real world.

 

[edward37]

Now a whistle blower comes out about Trumps taxes The thief is backed into a corner along with all his followers here

 

[Lesh]

I didn't argue anything of the sort, you moron homosexual. The FEC has always limited "a thing of value" to something tangible. Information has never been considered a thing of value. Even volunteering your services is not considered a thing of value. Should Komrade Schiff go to prison because leftwing lawyers helped this so-called "whistleblower?" According to you, that's a campaign contribution.

As usual...you are completely full of shit


See "in kind contribution"

Types of contributions - FEC.gov

 

[Thinker101]

We have a transcript to back it up, and all you have is sleazy lying Schiff for Brains. The idea that it's illegal for the federal government to prosecute corrupt politicians just because they happen to be running for office doesn't pass the laugh test.

You have a transcript where Trump solicits the Urkainian president to open an investigation into Trumps chief political rival. Where Trump explicitly connects additional US aid.....to doing this favor for Trump.

Zelensky: ...we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

President: I would like you to do us a favor though...

Yup. First line on page 3.

What line and what page is Biden brought up?

Trump's Ukraine call transcript: Read the document

a debunked crowdstrike conspiracy investigation is also for his own personal political gain.

our president should not be asking a foreign country to investigate an American citizen...while holding back aid... the Doj should do it, if they find probable cause to do it.... the president should NOT be involved.... or put his thumb on the scale, EVER!

justice is suppose to be blind

HOW CAN YOU NOT COMPREHEND THAT...?

Yep, Justice is blind means justice is impartial and objective, not blind (visually), deaf, and stupid

and do you think the president is being impartial and objective?

it's obvious that he is not...

No, but you sure seem to be blind, deaf and stupid.

 

[Skylar]

Pure speculation and subjectivism.

Suuure, uh-huh. Words actually do have meaning, even if you don't know what that meaning is...

though means but, however, nevertheless or in spite of.

yeah, the Ukrainians were definitely made to understand that cooperation with the US was held back until the 'corruption cases' (read Trump's baseless Crowdstrike and Biden conspiracies) investigations were complete.

Here's the Ukraine's summary of the call with Trump BEFORE the whistleblower complaint was publicly known.

"Donald Trump expressed his conviction that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve Ukraine’s image and complete the investigation of corruption cases that have held back cooperation between the Ukraine and the United States."

But US cooperation being held back until the 'corruption' investigations were complete was completely subjective, huh? Odd then that the Ukrainians got that exact message.

I mean, think of the odds! Apparently, 1 in 1.

You're inferring a conclusion. Your inferences are worthless in a court of law. Meanwhile you imagine Biden didn't do anything.

You are clearly suffering from brain damage.

You just argued that ONLY foreign donations are restricted in the solicitation prohibitions.

That's not what the FEC says. The FEC has never limited 'things of value' to donations. Nor does the FEC in its latest statement.

That would be you insisting that only donations are 'things of value'.

And as we've established, you know jack shit about the law.

I didn't argue anything of the sort, you moron homosexual.

Oh, I believe you. But this Bripat9643 guy? He says you're a fucking liar:

Whistle Blower Outted -- It is a Brennen era operative....

Where you explicitly argued that 'damaging information' isn't something of value. And then quoting a college lawyer insisting that ONLY donations from foreign nationals are prohibited.

The FEC never says this.

The FEC has always limited "a thing of value" to something tangible. Information has never been considered a thing of value. Even volunteering your services is not considered a thing of value. Should Komrade Schiff go to prison because leftwing lawyers helped this so-called "whistleblower?" According to you, that's a campaign contribution.

Says you, citing you. Here's the FEC statement: Show us where limits 'things of value to something tangible.

You can't. As she never said this. Nor did the FEC. You did. Citing yourself.

And you know jack shit about the law.

The problem with boneheads like you is that you never consider the implications of your daft legal theories in the real world.

Says the poor, confused soul that insisted that Flynn's constitutional protections against self incrimination were violated because investigators asked him a few questions in his office.

How'd the 'real world implications' of that one work out for you again?

Remember, you don't actually know a thing about the law. Which tends to limit the utility of your 'legal theories'.

 

[Faun]

Eliminating potential competition from the election they're both running in is a thing of value.

Not according to election law.

Says you, but you're a confirmed fucking moron.

Says the chief of the federal election commission.

No, says you offering us your venerably clueless pseudo-legal gibberish where you make up inane babble about the law and then insist that our government is bound to whatever you make up.

Um, no. It isn't.

In comparison to your comic misunderstandings of the law, we have what the head of the FEC *actually* said:

"It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a US election. "

So much for your pseudo-legal gibberish. It doesn't amount to much, does it?

Damaging information is not "a thing of value," according to campaign finance regulations, you stupid lying homo.

Damaging Information​

What, then, of the allegations that Trump Jr. violated campaign finance laws? Section 30121 of Title 52 makes it illegal for a “foreign national…to make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value…in connection with a Federal…election” (emphasis added), and also makes it illegal for someone “to solicit, accept, or receive” such a contribution or donation. Even assuming that Trump Jr’s enthusiastic response (“If it's what you say I love it”) to the offer of “damaging information” about Hillary Clinton could qualify as a “solicitation”—itself quite a stretch—or that such information was actually provided to Trump Jr., contrary to explicit denials by both sides of attendees at the meeting, damaging information about one’s political opponent is not a “thing of value” as that phrase is used in the campaign finance laws.


First, the same phrase, “thing of value” (or more precisely, “anything of value”) is part of the definition of “contribution” that applies to all provisions of federal campaign finance law. If freely offered opposition research qualified as a “thing of value,” every candidate and campaign committee who receives such opposition research from anyone—and they all do—would be a serial violator of the campaign finance laws, because that routine provision of opposition research information would then have to be reported as an in-kind contribution on their federal campaign finance reports. As even a quick perusal of campaign finance reports available on the Federal Election Commission’s website will show, none of them do so.


Second, even if the phrase, “anything of value,” in the statutory definition of “contribution” could be interpreted broadly enough to include “damaging information” on one’s opponent, the definition of “contribution” also explicitly excludes “the value of services provided without compensation by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee.” Voluntarily collecting information about a political opponent and offering it to the campaign is therefore not a “contribution,” even if it could be treated as a “thing of value.” Notably, this exception applies not just to U.S. citizens but to foreign nationals as well, who are allowed to volunteer on U.S. political campaigns.


Finally, the real legal problem here is not on the Trump side of the equation, but on the Clinton side. It is important to recall just what “damaging information about Hillary Clinton” the Russian temptress is alleged to have offered. According to Donald Trump Jr. himself, Veselnitskaya claimed “that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton.” That’s not just a “thing of value,” but an outright cash contribution, illegal under any interpretation of the campaign finance laws. Maybe Tim Keane should be more careful about throwing stones when he himself may live in a Russian-financed glass house.​

Figures the forum's fucking moron can't understand what other people post. Fucking moron, he says...

If freely offered opposition research qualified as a “thing of value,” every candidate and campaign committee who receives such opposition research from anyone—and they all do—would be a serial violator of the campaign finance laws​

That's false. No one ever said every thing of value, in this example, "opposition research," is illegal and is a violation of campaign finance laws. What the laws do state is that it's illegal if it comes from a foreign national. So he's wrong about that. Then he says,

the definition of “contribution” also explicitly excludes “the value of services provided without compensation by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee.” ​

That does appear to be accurate but does not apply in this case. He was talking about a situation where Trump Jr. met with someone who purportedly had "damaging information" on Hillary. That may not be a thing of value as no services were rendered. In this case with Zelensky, Trump asked him to perform a service -- to investigate the DNC server and the Bidens. That service has value. Which trump compensated Ukraine with the $250 million he wouldn't release until Zelensky agreed to perform those investigations.