By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Aeolus451 said:
Final-Fan said:

1.  When you agreed that "going to a meeting for the agreed-upon purpose of obtaining a thing would count as "soliciting" that thing", did you not understand that going to a meeting for the purpose of obtaining a thing is a fact that doesn't change based on whether or not you were successful in obtaining that thing? 

2.  Isn't it contradictory to (a) assert that such information would not be "money or other thing of value", yet (b) admit that the information would be devastating to Mr. Trump's political opponent?  (In other words, why wouldn't that information be of immense value to Mr. Trump, and therefore forbidden for him to receive or seek to receive from foreign nationals?)

3.  Let's keep separate the question of whether Mr. Trump has broken the law and the question of whether others have broken the law—these are different questions.  Right now we are working on the first of these questions; if you want to admit that he has done so in your honest opinion (not simply for the sake of agrument), we can move on to whether that fact is unusual among politicians (especially, whether Mrs. Clinton has also done comparable or worse law-breaking). 

1. That wasn't the basis of my disagreement with it not being solicitation but it does make it less of a big deal because nothing was exchanged. My basis was that it didn't directly contribute to the campaign therefore it doesn't apply to this.

2. Not really because depending on how the evidence against hillary was used, it would change it's perceived value and if it would be of any contribution to the campaign in a roundabout way. Also, what is considered as "other thing of value" is arguable and the law doesn't specially mention anything about the exchange of something that directly damages the compaign of an opponent rather than being a direct contribution to the campaign. 

3. Well, politicians have been breaking the spirit of this law for a long time so to me, it's silly to use it as a way to get someone who came closer to breaking the letter of the law rather than the spirit.  This should dropped just because it's not gonna fly in court and jury. It's more or less a means to damage trump regardless if it goes anywhere or not. I can undertand why democrats wouldn't let that bone go easily.

The law should be changed to better fit the times. It's built around foreign national (foreigner in your country) attempting to give a contribution or donation in exchange for a favor in the physical world. Politicians are given donations from foreigners in exchange for favors all the time but they just happen to be not on our soil when they do it because of conveniences of modern times.

1.  If the information was exclusively something to be used against a party Mr. Trump wanted to see damaged, and therefore was exclusively an indirect benefit to Mr. Trump & Donald Trump's campaign as opposed to a direct benefit, this could be seen as equivalent to performing a service, which are most certainly covered under this statute as I believe case law attests.  Additionally, by that logic securing the services of a hitman is fine because it doesn't directly benefit you, only damages another party to your indirect benefit. 

2.  Please agree or disagree to the following statements.  You may, obviously, give as much context or qualification as you like to your agreement, disagreement, or uncertainty. 
(a)  Trump would not have taken time out of his busy schedule for a meeting to obtain information that he did not value. 
(b)  The statement of the go-between, "...offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information..." indicate that he considered the information to be a thing of value
(c.)  The statement of Mr. Trump, "...if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer." indicates that he considered the information to be a thing of value
(d)  In general, information can be a thing of value, which is demonstrated by people and organizations expending resources to produce, obtain, publicize, or prevent the publicization of information, which they would not do if it was worthless. 
(e)  In specific, this would be a case of a party (Mr. Trump) valuing information for the purposes of obtaining and subsequently publicizing information "especially later in the summer". 

3.  I don't see how trying to do something illegal (but failing) would be closer to the spirit of the law than trying to do something illegal (and succeeding). 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom!