This is where I think your argument fails. Broad meaning of thing of value for non tangible things in this context http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/07/donald_trump_jr_s_free_speech_defense_is_as_bogus_as_it_sounds.html …https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/884631379245498368 …
-
1/ But the statute has a lot more text than "thing of value" that is getting lost in this discussion. I agree, this was a thing of value.
I try to lay it out in a number of blog posts, shortened in slate. solicitation thing of value from foreign person/entity w/knowledge
-
-
1/ Unless I'm mistaken, the statute doesn't prohibit soliciting a thing of value. It prohibits soliciting a contribution or donation,
-
I think you are mistaken. Prohibits contribution or donation as defined in (a), which includes donation of thing of value
-
Does the statute prohibit transferring a broader class of items than may be solicited? "thing of value" doesn't appear in solicit rule.
-
it is incorporated by reference to the language of prohibited contributions earlier (in both statute and reg)
-
It specifically says as described in (a) or (b). Kerr's argument is absurd. Absolutely absurd.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Doesn't that have pretty strong 1A implications if merely talking to someone is criminal without an independent crime?
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.