Skeptical re: (purported) info about opponent's (purported) campaign finance violations being "thing of value" like door /1 @1ChicagoDave
OK to volunteer time, but not to provide a "thing of value" like opposition research http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93733 https://twitter.com/1ChicagoDave/status/884982315369336832 …
-
-
-
hangers, other material things in the Canada case Prof. Hasen referenced, which as FEC noted would require expenditure to obtain. Dirt on /2
-
opponent is not a category I've yet seen a case referencing (e.g. if that NBC staffer had given the Trump Billy Bush tape to HRC /3
-
campaign instead of to WaPo). But more importantly, as I replied to the Prof in another tweet, the "solicitation" here was not by DJT Jr. /4
-
but by the *Russian lawyer*. DJT Jr. was the *solicitee*, not the solicitor. "If it's what you say I love it" is not solicitation; it's a /5
-
expression of potential interest in thing solicited (which ultimately turned out to be nothing so there was no agreement to accept it). /6
-
Under my reading (NB: my specialty isn't election law), no solicitation & no violation (assuming info is "thing of value" in 1st place). /7
-
If there'd been anything to accept, & depending on "thing of value" analysis, case may have been different. Given FEC's "de minimis" /8
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
This is academia's version of every client who thinks they're a better litigator than me.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In opinion cited the data is an 'in kind contribution' — something for which he normally charges. Is that the case in this situation?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.