andrei, on 2017-December-05, 11:28, said:
Yeap, that was quite a boom ...
Quote
The confidant provided ABC News with new details on Friday about Trump’s instructions to Flynn. During the campaign, Trump asked Flynn to be one of a small group of close advisers charged with improving relations in Russia and other hot spots. The source said Trump phoned Flynn shortly after the election to explicitly ask him to “serve as point person on Russia,” and to reach out personally to Russian officials to develop strategies to jointly combat ISIS.
So how is Trump asking Flynn to be a point person on Russia about developing strategies to jointly combat ISIS = Collusion between Trump campaign and Russia regarding the federal election?
Furthermore, the Federal Election Comission(FEC) code says,
Quote
The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the United States. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:
- Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;
- Making any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district, or local political party (including donations to a party nonfederal account or office building account);
- Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication;
- Making any donation to a presidential inaugural committee.
- Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to an FEC enforcement action, criminal prosecution, or both.
The violations of this code generally include contributions of money but may include things of value like works of art, precious jewelry, and the like that can typically have a readily identifiable market value.
It is going to be VERY HARD to quantify the market value of opposition research because no legal precedent has been set to treat an "opposition research paper" provided by a foreign agent as a "thing of value" for purposes of criminal prosecution. Why? Because the federal government is basically trying to prevent foreign agents from using DARK MONEY as free speech in our federal elections. Even on a good day, this "opposition research paper" is not a smoking gun without a readily defined market value. It is also a thing of free speech which presents some Constitutional safeguards that may protect Trump Jr. from any serious prosecution.
The treatment of the opposition research paper as a standalone "thing of value" is a straw grasper and most of the Washington elite know it. That's in part why they want to give Mueller as much wide discretion, lattitude, and budgetary support in the investigation to make the spaghetti stick against the wall.
But I am no lawyer, so let's look to Alan Dershowitz, prominent Harvard law professor and liberal author, about his assessment of the "thing of value" contribution under FEC laws versus Trump, Jr.'s 1st Amendment right to have access to that opposition research as protected free speech.
See
https://www.washingt...duct-likely-co/