• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

First Charges Filed in Mueller Investigation

I haven't followed the collusion story as closely as I would have liked. Is the theory that the "thing of value" under 11 CFR 110.20 is the DNC emails? If so, how does the theory deal with the fact that the prohibition on "knowingly" accepting a "thing of value" refers to "funds"--i.e., campaign contributions/donations?

Why haven't you followed it?
 
Do you know the answer to my question?

My personal life isn't really relevant to this thread, but if you must know, I recently took a new job and I am very busy at work. I haven't followed--or posted on--much of anything political over the past 6 months or so.

Congratulations!
 
I really don't get the Trump apologists. Is anyone really surprised? This isn't squeaky clean Romney or even Pence. It's Donald ****'ing Trump. How can anyone say with a straight face "No way Trump did this! That just doesn't sound like something Donald Trump would do!"
You don't get Trump apologists because you are applying logic and reason to their motivations where there is neither. It's tribalism - people's identity based in spiteful rural nationalism. As long as Trump pisses off minorities, gays, and liberals on behalf of white conservatives he will receive unquestioned loyalty from them. There is no argument or event that will change that.
 
I haven't followed the collusion story as closely as I would have liked. Is the theory that the "thing of value" under 11 CFR 110.20 is the DNC emails? If so, how does the theory deal with the fact that the prohibition on "knowingly" accepting a "thing of value" refers to "funds"--i.e., campaign contributions/donations?

I'm not a lawyer, but I read that part of the value provided to the campaign by Russians was the fact that Manafort received millions in fees from Russians as an unregistered agent and then worked for Trump for free. Seems a bit weak, but that's one angle, basically the Russian's paid Manafort so Trump didn't have to.
 
You don't get Trump apologists because you are applying logic and reason to their motivations where there is neither. It's tribalism - people's identity based in spiteful rural nationalism. As long as Trump pisses off minorities, gays, and liberals on behalf of white conservatives he will receive unquestioned loyalty from them. There is no argument or event that will change that.

Right. You know how we used to joke that we hate UNC so much that we'd root for the Russians over UNC? It's like that. Example conservatives hate minorities, gays, and liberals so much that they'd root for Russians over us.
 
I haven't followed the collusion story as closely as I would have liked. Is the theory that the "thing of value" under 11 CFR 110.20 is the DNC emails? If so, how does the theory deal with the fact that the prohibition on "knowingly" accepting a "thing of value" refers to "funds"--i.e., campaign contributions/donations?

By reading the entire section I presume.

110.20(b) deals with "donation of money or other thing of value," and donation is defined as "a payment, gift, subscription, loan, advance, deposit, or anything of value."

Whether "other thing of value" includes information is a question I don't know enough to answer. But it's pretty clear from the face of the regulation (the focus on funds in 110.20(a)(4) notwithstanding) that it includes more than just money.
 
You don't get Trump apologists because you are applying logic and reason to their motivations where there is neither. It's tribalism - people's identity based in spiteful rural nationalism. As long as Trump pisses off minorities, gays, and liberals on behalf of white conservatives he will receive unquestioned loyalty from them. There is no argument or event that will change that.

I think you are oversimplifying it. My parents are yuge trumpets, so I’ve done a lot of thinking about this. I think Trump fits really well into the worldview of a few demographics, and all those demographics are afraid of losing their way of life. First, there are shitbags like him. The Mike Flynn’s of the world. Trump’s win normalizes their shittiness in their mind. Next there are folks for whom wealth is inherently moral. For these folks, Trump’s success implies he’s a good decision maker or just #blessed in some way. Stocks are up, tax cuts are coming, everything else isn’t that important. This subsection crosses over into religious conservatives, specifically evangelicals. In their mind, God has given Trump his wealth, and that’s a pretty huge endorsement to that prosperity gospel bullshit lapping crowd. Then you have folks who are just inherently afraid. Trump’s tough talk about the things, and more important people, that scare them makes them feel safe. You also cannot discredit the role of increasingly isolating media consumption. Just look at how Fox is reporting today. It’s a very real thing, and even if you admit it’s a counter balance to leftist media, you can’t honestly deny that the fox bias is there. You also have to accept that Fox is even more mainstream than others outlets. It’s functionally a gateway media outlet. This isn’t every Trump supporter, but the true believers will never be swayed. It would mean abandonment of their very identity. Groups of folks afraid or unwilling to change aren’t really known for their willingness to admit they were wrong about something.
 
What is the definition of "knowingly"?

The definition only mentions funds, but limiting 110.20(g) to the acceptance of funds via the definition of "knowingly" makes the paragraph nonsensical (if it only applies to funds it cannot apply to "any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section).

It's also worth pointing out that not every offense in that section has the same knowledge requirement. It is an odd reading, at best, to conclude that the intent of the regulation was to limit some offenses to the donation of funds exclusively while allowing others to include donations of anything of value by only using the word funds in the definition of knowingly.
 
This isn’t every Trump supporter, but the true believers will never be swayed. It would mean abandonment of their very identity. Groups of folks afraid or unwilling to change aren’t really known for their willingness to admit they were wrong about something.

That's tribalism. The xenophobic fear that Trump engenders among conservative whites is...scary.
 
 
I don't think you are reading the regulation correctly. I think the best reading of the regulation is that (1) foreign nationals have violated the law if they contribute any thing of value (note that there is no knowledge requirement for any of the prohibitions on foreign nationals ((b-f) and i-j)) but (2) citizens only violate the law ((g and h)) if they receive "funds," and not just "things of value" (because of the knowledge requirement). That reading is the only way to make sense of the knowledge requirement for citizens.

That would mean 110.20(g) reads as follows (using (a)(4)(i), a(2) and (b)):

No person shall [having knowledge that the source of funds solicited, accepted, or received is a foreign national] solicit accept or receive from a foreign national any contribution or [payment, gift, subscription, loan, advance, deposit, or anything of value given to a person] [of money or any other thing of value].

I'm just not seeing any compelling reason to read "funds" in the first bracket as limiting the definition of donation in the second bracket or the things of value in the third bracket.

If the drafters of the regulation intended to only prohibit the acceptance of funds, and not other things of value (which would be an odd policy choice in and of itself), this was an incredibly odd and frankly ineffective way of doing so.
 
I think my reading is correct.

Your reading is plausible.

A third reading would be that "thing of value" must be something that has intrinsic value, like a block of gold, a house, etc., and not something that the campaign may think is valuable.

At best, the regulation is ambiguous, so the rule lenity should apply and Webster's dad couldn't viably be charged with anything other than lying to the FBI.

The third reading is probably correct.
 
Back
Top