Jump to content

Surly lawyers: Re your text message interpreting 52 USC 30121...call me.


tantric superman

Recommended Posts

Correct me if I am wrong.  This is the statute that Trump arguably violated:

52 U.S.C. § 30121 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 52. Voting and Elections § 30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

 

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for--

(1)  a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make--

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B)  a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party;  or

(C)  an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title);  or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

(b) “Foreign national” defined

As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means--

(1)  a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of Title 22 , except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States;  or

(2)  an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of Title 8 ) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of Title 8 .

Trump would be liable under (a)(2) correct?

If so, notice how (a)(2) does not include "or other thing of value" which is listed in (a)(1)(A)?

The promise to investigate Biden is an "other thing of value" isn't it?

That seems like a pretty big hole to me in terms of finding him liable under this particular statute.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're reading it wrong.

donation goes with both (i) money and (ii) other thing of value.  [if it didn't, the sentence would be the nongrammatical "It shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make a . . . other thing of value"]

so when it says you cannot solicit the "donation described", it is "donation of other thing of value."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that just about anything could be a "thing of value" under FEC interpretation.  I don't think it's been tested.

I think calling this "election interference" or an "election law violation" focuses on the wrong thing.

People would be aghast if he had the FBI or IRS investigate political opponents.  Instead he's asking foreign governments to do it.  It's astonishingly corrupt, whether it's illegal or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The head of the FEC, Ellen Weintraub, was interviewed on the last “Pod Save America” and she said a “thing of value” can be information or polling or oppo research.

She was asked what if a campaign asked another party to dig up dirt on an opponent but the investigation didn’t discover anything. Is that a “thing of value”? She said yes because there would be expenses involved in any investigation even if nothing is discovered in said investigation.

It’s the last 15 minutes or so of the episode titled “Where Is The Line?”.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It seems that just about anything could be a "thing of value" under FEC interpretation.  I don't think it's been tested.

I think calling this "election interference" or an "election law violation" focuses on the wrong thing.

People would be aghast if he had the FBI or IRS investigate political opponents.  Instead he's asking foreign governments to do it.  It's astonishingly corrupt, whether it's illegal or not.

17% of those polled by FOX believe it is appropriate and are not aghast.

61be1920-5.png?ve=1&tl=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites




People would be aghast if he had the FBI or IRS investigate political opponents.  Instead he's asking foreign governments to do it.  It's astonishingly corrupt, whether it's illegal or not.


Are you implying Republicans are not people?


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, troph said:

May not have been tested but that’s because until now even our worst presidents weren’t this bad, it’s not because it’s unclear.

Did not intend to imply that, just wondered in the past if the law went as far as the language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...