,
13 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
This was such weaselly phrasing. "Foreign assistance" is deliberately vague because it could encompass almost anything, including non-governmental, non-financial "assistance" provided by people who happen to be foreigners: which is not illegal in the US 
Considering this was one of the few exchanges from the Mueller testimony that Dems have cheered, let's just parse it for a moment. What "foreign assistance" is Schiff referring to? Presumably 1) The 2016 Trump Tower meeting and 2) WikiLeaks
1) The Trump Tower meeting was facilitated by music publicist Rob Goldstone, who has stated many times (including to Mueller) that he was not acting on behalf of any foreign government, and was simply using "puffery" to entice Don Jr. into accepting a meeting with his client
So there was no genuine "foreign assistance" offered or accepted at the Trump Tower meeting. It was all a bogus pretext used by an oblivious music publicist to placate his client. Mueller later concluded in the Report that nothing "of value" was transmitted at the meeting
If you're going to argue that simply meeting with the Russian lawyer, who orally conveyed (bogus) information that had no value, constitutes an acceptance of "foreign assistance," then you are essentially calling for the criminalization of legal, protected political speech
You're also conflating foreign individuals with foreign governments. The term "foreign assistance" implies that the "assistance" in question has been provided at the direction of a government. But Schiff wants to conflate, because his argument is based on misdirection and fallacy
If accepting "foreign assistance" is now going to be regarded as "unpatriotic" and criminal, we need clear definitions of the terms "foreign" and "assistance." These weasel-words are obviously too vague to translate into any tenable, universally-applicable standard
What are some "foreign" actions that might constitute "assistance" to a presidential campaign? If a foreign media outlet publishes something that reflects negatively on a US political candidate, and another candidate "welcomes" that, is he/she "accepting foreign assistance"?
Did you know that it's perfectly legal, per the FEC, for federal candidates to accept "foreign assistance" in the form of volunteer services from foreign nationals? Are Schiff (and Mueller) now declaring this activity presumptively "unpatriotic" and criminal?
If the other nefarious "foreign assistance" Schiff refers to is WikiLeaks publishing emails that reflected poorly on Trump's opponent, Trump didn't tangibly "accept" anything, he just reacted to public information: as did every US media outlet
By using the phrase "foreign assistance" in relation to WikiLeaks, Schiff disingenuously implies that there was some active collusive or illicit relationship between Trump and WikiLeaks: a theory which *Mueller's own Report* definitively debunks
In sum, not only is the logic employed by Schiff and endorsed by Mueller predicated on deliberate obfuscation, it has disturbing First Amendment implications, which of course everyone ignores because they're so desperate for a scintillating sound bite
Discussed this and more on the stream last night, remember to subscribe (or else)
