For the sake of argument, let's pretend that
1. Jr. *believed* that this information was not obtained by any unlawful acts {you know, like stolen from someone's cyber cloud/ e-mailbox by a hacker or anything like that}
This way no one has to worry about pesky things like receiving / possessing / soliciting stolen goods.
2. Jr. Truly believed that this was simply a one way transfer of documents... with no expectation of payment to be received in exchange...
This way no one has to worry about Quid-Pro-Quo involving future payment in the form of classified military intelligence data or sanction lifting in order to provide comfort/aide to Russian government
Or any concerns of bribery of a politician by a foreign nation.
Clearly, all parties involved, at some point, believed that the information would be of value to the Trump Campaign efforts.
Otherwise, 8 people from across the globe would not have made time in their schedule and put forth effort to all convene at Trump Tower to discuss the acquisition of this information.
The intent, therefore, was for Jr. To obtain this contribution of information, which all parties believed to be of useful value to the Trump campaign, from a group of foreign nationals thought to be acting on behalf of a foreign government.
Which is unlawful according to:
>snip<
52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value,
or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22,
except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
(Pub. L. 92–225, title III, § 319, formerly § 324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, § 112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493; renumbered § 319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, § 105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354; amended Pub. L. 107–155, title III, §§ 303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96, 109.)
>snip<
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121
No "jump" required to conclude that the act was unlawful.
So, perhaps Christie is troubled because there are so many different UNLAWFUL categories from which to choose...
eenie- meenie- miny- moe
Catch a traitor by ...
Quid-Pro-quo?
Espionage co-ordination, no?
Accepting Foreign Campaign Dough?
How bout a bribe ? Possibly so.
The prosecutor will pick the very best one ..
And RICO is its name-o...
= new reply since forum marked as read
