The latest topic -- politicians and political campaigns accepting "something of value" from foreign nationals and foreign governments -- is a topic that Donald Trump treats like a candy store. George Stephanopolis, in his ABC broadcast interview with Trump Sunday night, tried to correct some of Trump's misstatements. It was obvious Trump doesn't listen -- he just blusters and bloviates right over anyone who disagrees with him.
Vox.com's Jen Kirby wrote a clarifying piece online June 14, 2019. Here are some excerpts:
* * * * *
". . . . And when it comes to foreign influence, the law is clear: As [FEC's] Weintraub wrote [see ShrinkRap, June 16], it is 'illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.'
"In most cases, what this means is pretty obvious: Foreign nationals can't donate money to a presidential campaign. It's also illegal for candidates themselves to solicit or receive monetary contributions from foreign nationals.
"But while a 'thing of value' is easy to define when it comes to money, or even services or in-kind contributions, it's a lot more complicated when it comes to something like opposition research, or so-called campaign dirt.
"Campaign-relevant information from a foreign national definitely can be an illegal in-kind contribution, but it gets trickier when the information does not have obvious case value and isn't necessarily something that a campaign regularly needs to buy . . .
"Special counsel Robert Mueller grappled with this question as part of his investigation. . . . [He] concluded in his report that 'candidate-related opposition research given to a campaign for the purpose of influencing an election could constitute a contribution to which the foreign-sourced ban could apply,' but added that the issue hadn't really been tested in court and could also have freedom of speech implications.
"Ultimately, Mueller declined to prosecute Trump, Jr. because he said he could not prove that the president's son 'knowingly' or 'willfully' broke the law . . . .
"Experts are split on Mueller's conclusion on Trump Jr. But . . . [other experts] pointed out that Mueller's decision was about whether Trump Jr. should be criminally charged -- and doesn't address the question of whether he could be subject to civil penalties from the FEC, which has a much lower threshold. . .
"Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School [says] that practical considerations would suggest that, yes, campaign dirt does have value. 'There's a reason campaigns pay for opposition research: . . . It can be much more useful and valuable than walking in with a check.'
[So, what about the Steele dossier, which was essentially opposition research on Trump. Trump has argued that the Clinton campaign is the one that should be investigated, because the Clinton campaign paid, in part, for that opposition research done by a foreign national, Christopher Steele, a former British spy. And now Republicans are using this to deflect attention from the Trump comments about accepting dirt on his opponents. Back to quoting from the Vox.com article:]
"Experts told me that when it comes to campaign finance law, hiring or contracting a foreigner to do services for a campaign is allowed. 'You can pay a foreign national to provide you services, so a campaign, for instance, could have a campaign attorney who is a Canadian citizsen,' Levinson said. "As long as you pay fair market rates for those services, that's not what the federal campaign act says is prohibited. That's just a fair exchange of money for services.'
"If this kind of seems like a loophole, experts pointed out that it would be really hard to run a campaign otherwise. It would mean having to worry if the campaign signs you printed came from a foreign company, or if the catering firm you hired had foreign workers.
"If a campaign is paying someone for work or services, they're being compensated. But where that doesn't happen, and a campaign is accepting a contribution -- or 'thing of value' -- from a foreign government, the question then is what's in it for them?
"As [FEC's] Weintraub noted, America's founders knew that when foreign governments seek to interfere in elections, it's always to advance their interests, not America's. . . .
"[When asked on "Fox and Friends" whether he would accept a similar offer for the 2020 campaign, Trump said] . . . he doesn't 'think anybody would present me with anything [i.e. dirt on an opponent in the upcoming election] because they know how much I love the country.' But his comments earlier in the week suggested otherwise. Jared Kushner . . . also wouldn't say in an interview last week whether he'd call the FBI if he were offered dirt again.
"[When asked on "Fox and Friends" whether he would accept a similar offer for the 2020 campaign, Trump said] . . . he doesn't 'think anybody would present me with anything [i.e. dirt on an opponent in the upcoming election] because they know how much I love the country.' But his comments earlier in the week suggested otherwise. Jared Kushner . . . also wouldn't say in an interview last week whether he'd call the FBI if he were offered dirt again.
"And that refusal to be unequivocal about foreign interference ultimately undermines a thing of value for all Americans: the belief in the integrity of the vote."
* * * * *
Well, Trump and his team really got caught flatfooted in this one. Whether he is just so ignorant and so uncaring about our laws that he doesn't even have any such category in his mind -- or else he is so willfully lawless -- really doesn't make much difference. The result is the same. Donald Trump is a disaster for our democracy.
Our only hope is that the democracy itself is strong enough to withstand such an assault and survive to repair it.
It's important not to confuse what Team Trump did with Russia from what Hillary Clinton did with the Steele Dossier. One was "accepting dirt" to help Trump win the election -- and the American public still doesn't know what price Trump paid Putin for it. The other was simply a business arrangement for services rendered, past tense, with no further obligations or implied favoritism.
Republicans will continue to try to conflate the two, because it's their best defense to give their ignorant/gullible base. But the two are not in the same category at all. Keep that clear.
Ralph
No comments:
Post a Comment