Quote (thundercock @ Oct 7 2019 06:09pm)
except that wouldn't work for a dozen reasons;
Quote
- Trying to count unpaid, non-coerced, information given freely with no direct financial application as a "thing of value" would infringe on the first amendment by restricting constitutionally protected free speech and association.
- It would also incriminate the vast majority of politicians and journalists in the whole country and a good chunk of all citizens, because virtually any conversation with a plausible political benefit would now count as an illegal campaign donation. The statute does not only apply to politicians, it applies to anyone.
- It would be a constitutionally prohibited ex post facto redefinition of a law to completely change its effect and apply it retroactively, violating articles 1 sections 9 & 10
- It would be an unconstitutional overly vague law, violating the 5th amendment
- It would infringe on the constitutional powers of sovereign diplomacy granted to the president.
- It would not pass the FEC's irrespective test, as its a request that could exist irrespective of a campaign, same reason a politician doesn't need to use campaign funds and report it when he gets a haircut, despite haircuts having an effect on elections.
- It would be a slap on the wrist, with the FEC's normal penalty being restitution of value and a minor fine. For example, Ilhan Omar was found guilty of 6 campaign finance violations from 2016 and had to repay their $3,469 value plus a $500 civil penalty. Neverminding there's no conceivable way to put a legitimate dollar amount on information from Ukraine, Mueller's report indicated that in court it might be valued at a token $1, meaning the penalty would be to pay something like $1 to Ukraine and $500 to the government.
- It wouldn't be remotely impeachable, as that such campaign finance violations never have been. Obama was fined for taking massive illegal contributions to his campaign, Republicans didn't impeach him when they held control of congress. It doesn't even fit the constitutional definition of 'high crimes or misdemeanors' as its a civil offense, below a misdemeanor let alone felony.
That FEC chairwoman is a democrat partisan who has been loudly reiterating their talking points without any power of the committee, which lacks quorum anyway. What she says is pretty meaningless, and totally unenforceable. If what she said was actually true, Robert Mueller would have pressed charges against Donald Trump Jr for starters. Politicians of both parties came away from the Muellerburger by claiming that foreign election interference is illegal and colluding with foreign powers to influence the campaign would be illegal, but in reality there's no applicable statute and the one trial that is underway, the Concord Management one, is basically rubbing the constitutional all over its ass while proceeding as a total farce
Civil libertarianism is basically extinct at this point, but I'd like to pretend to carry that torch still. So its particularly disgusting to me when the country is running around searching for a crime to suit the conduct
This post was edited by Goomshill on Oct 7 2019 06:18pm