• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Donald Trump Jr. did not violate campaign laws

H

hanger4

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
7,501
Reaction score
1,500
Location
WNC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Federal Election Commission is the independent regulatory agency which enforces campaign laws enacted by Congress. On its government website, the FEC makes it clear that it is perfectly lawful for foreign nationals to be involved in American political campaigns:

“Even though a foreign national cannot make campaign contributions, he or she can serve as an uncompensated volunteer for a campaign or political party”.
.......
The Commission goes on to explain that foreigners are “allowed to attend campaign strategy meetings and events”. They are allowed to contribute ideas, information, and even advice. They are allowed to open their mouths and speak.
.........
The same language is found in both the Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101 8-B) and the Code of Federal Regulations (100.74):

“The value of services provided by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee is not a contribution.”

Gregg Jarrett: Donald Trump Jr. did not violate campaign laws -- Pelosi and others are wrong | Fox News
 
Did you read your article? It states multiple times that an individual can contribute. This meeting was proposed by and represented to be on behalf of a foreign government. FOX News is rumored to be slanted to the right. This might give a little traction to that rumor!

What do they call five individuals? Gaggle?
 
hanger4 said:
“Even though a foreign national cannot make campaign contributions, he or she can serve as an uncompensated volunteer for a campaign or political party”.
Click to expand...
OK, not relevant but OK. .......
The Commission goes on to explain that foreigners are “allowed to attend campaign strategy meetings and events”.
Click to expand...
OK, so you're saying it was a campaign strategy meeting?
Tey are allowed to contribute ideas, information, and even advice. They are allowed to open their mouths and speak.
Click to expand...
Oops, this one is not quoted. Can you quote it or link the source that this non-quoted part is based on? You know, so you can check it. .........
“The value of services provided by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee is not a contribution.”
Click to expand...
Irrelevant, but OK. She wasn't presumed to be a campaign contributer, nor would that be directly an issue. I find that your willingness to link to a source that: 1. uses 3 quoted claims, that are irrelevant (misleading, red herrings? cover?) 2. uses one possibly relevant claim, but doesn't quote it. (suspect!) It looks like more like misleading propaganda at this point. But you can resolve it and do a better job than Fox, by linking the source of those regulations and quoting that one, possibly relevant part. Otherwise it looks like a poor attempt at misleading.
 
Rexedgar said:
Did you read your article? It states multiple times that an individual can contribute. This meeting was proposed by and represented to be on behalf of a foreign government. FOX News is rumored to be slanted to the right. This might give a little traction to that rumor!

What do they call five individuals? Gaggle?
Click to expand...

A team or delegation is my best guess. The point remains that no FEC law, rule or code was found to have been violated. Collusion appears to now be defined as merely having a common goal - wanting Trump to win and Hillary to lose the POTUS election. There is ample evidence of collusion to give Hillary an edge over Bernie but that seems to be just peachy in the land of our election law investigators - all is fair in party politics and only the general election has any rules. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
A team or delegation is my best guess. The point remains that no FEC law, rule or code was found to have been violated. Collusion appears to now be defined as merely having a common goal - wanting Trump to win and Hillary to lose the POTUS election. There is ample evidence of collusion to give Hillary an edge over Bernie but that seems to be just peachy in the land of our election law investigators - all is fair in party politics and only the general election has any rules. ;)
Click to expand...

My reply was only to point out the fallacy of the article posted to back up the post. I have expected better quality from your prior posts. Hillary, Bernie, wassup with that?
 
hanger4 said:
The Federal Election Commission is the independent regulatory agency which enforces campaign laws enacted by Congress. On its government website, the FEC makes it clear that it is perfectly lawful for foreign nationals to be involved in American political campaigns:

“Even though a foreign national cannot make campaign contributions, he or she can serve as an uncompensated volunteer for a campaign or political party”.
.......
The Commission goes on to explain that foreigners are “allowed to attend campaign strategy meetings and events”. They are allowed to contribute ideas, information, and even advice. They are allowed to open their mouths and speak.
.........
The same language is found in both the Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101 8-B) and the Code of Federal Regulations (100.74):

“The value of services provided by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee is not a contribution.”

Gregg Jarrett: Donald Trump Jr. did not violate campaign laws -- Pelosi and others are wrong | Fox News
Click to expand...

Well he admits that he went to try to get info from Putin. So it wasn't for lack of trying.
 
Rexedgar said:
Did you read your article? It states multiple times that an individual can contribute. This meeting was proposed by and represented to be on behalf of a foreign government. FOX News is rumored to be slanted to the right. This might give a little traction to that rumor!

What do they call five individuals? Gaggle?
Click to expand...

Actually it says "any individual".

"B) The term "contribution" does not include-
(i) the value of services provided without compensation by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee;"

[USC03] 52 USC 30101: Definitions

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/100.74
 
Mach said:
OK, not relevant but OK. ....... OK, so you're saying it was a campaign strategy meeting? Oops, this one is not quoted. Can you quote it or link the source that this non-quoted part is based on? You know, so you can check it. ......... Irrelevant, but OK. She wasn't presumed to be a campaign contributer, nor would that be directly an issue. I find that your willingness to link to a source that: 1. uses 3 quoted claims, that are irrelevant (misleading, red herrings? cover?) 2. uses one possibly relevant claim, but doesn't quote it. (suspect!) It looks like more like misleading propaganda at this point. But you can resolve it and do a better job than Fox, by linking the source of those regulations and quoting that one, possibly relevant part. Otherwise it looks like a poor attempt at misleading.
Click to expand...

"Oops, this one is not quoted. Can you quote it or link the source that this non-quoted part is based on? You know, so you can check it."

Foreign nationals can volunteer services and attend strategy meetings yet not speak. Riiiiiiiiiight.
 
Another one in a long line of rubbish-filled Greg Jarrett pieces.

How anyone keeps citing his crap work is beyond me.
 
hanger4 said:
"Oops, this one is not quoted. Can you quote it or link the source that this non-quoted part is based on? You know, so you can check it." Foreign nationals can volunteer services and attend strategy meetings yet not speak. Riiiiiiiiiight.
Click to expand...
Again, just quote/link the source.
You refuse to, it's a trend I'm seeing with you.

Law is all about interpretation, you should imagine that someone may want the legal source, and not some ****tard hack partisan interpretation, then cut/pasted by you, to check. It's like Trump...maybe you had a point to make, but your refusal to back your claims makes your intention look suspicious as hell.
 
hanger4 said:
Actually it says "any individual".

"B) The term "contribution" does not include-
(i) the value of services provided without compensation by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee;"

[USC03] 52 USC 30101: Definitions

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/100.74
Click to expand...


You back my point. DJTjr responded to an e-mail that purported to represent a foreign entity.

Trump Jr. releases email chain on his Russian meeting - CNNPolitics.com
 
Last edited:
The question is not whether Don Jr colluded with foreign nationals, but with a foreign government seeking to interfere in an American election. That's why the Russian government now claims that they had nothing to do with the Russian lawyer that Jr met. She was just out there pretending to represent the Russian government. All she really wanted to do was talk about adoptions. She suckered Jr in by pretending to have dirt on Hillary. Hey stranger things have happened. Not many, but they have happened.
 
Mach said:
Again, just quote/link the source.
You refuse to, it's a trend I'm seeing with you.

Law is all about interpretation, you should imagine that someone may want the legal source, and not some ****tard hack partisan interpretation, then cut/pasted by you, to check. It's like Trump...maybe you had a point to make, but your refusal to back your claims makes your intention look suspicious as hell.
Click to expand...

What part of "any individual" didn't you understand ??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom