# Could and would Trump Sr. pardon Trump Jr. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 11, 2017, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001 "2017-07-11T15:00:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/181 "2017-07-13T03:30:30Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Let me try this one: you’re running the campaign of a guy running for dogcatcher. Someone emails you stating that he has evidence of criminal activity of your candidate’s opponent. Is the ethical thing: > > 1. Say “Great news! Let’s set up a meeting so we can exploit this!” > 2. Forward the email to your local police department. > > ? Stealing this illustration from Eugene Volokh: Imagine that, in summer 2016, a top Hillary Clinton campaign staffer gets a message: “A Miss Universe contestant — Miss Slovakia — says that Donald Trump had sexually assaulted her. Would you like to get her story?” The staffer says, “I’d love to,” and indeed gets the information, which he then uses in the campaign. Did the staffer and the Miss Universe contestant just commit a crime? ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/182 "2017-07-13T04:32:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Stealing this illustration from Eugene Volokh: > > Imagine that, in summer 2016, a top Hillary Clinton campaign staffer gets a message: “A Miss Universe contestant — Miss Slovakia — says that Donald Trump had sexually assaulted her. Would you like to get her story?” The staffer says, “I’d love to,” and indeed gets the information, which he then uses in the campaign. > > Did the staffer and the Miss Universe contestant just commit a crime? This information is not stolen. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/183 "2017-07-13T04:35:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Stealing this illustration from Eugene Volokh: > > Imagine that, in summer 2016, a top Hillary Clinton campaign staffer gets a message: “A Miss Universe contestant — Miss Slovakia — says that Donald Trump had sexually assaulted her. Would you like to get her story?” The staffer says, “I’d love to,” and indeed gets the information, which he then uses in the campaign. > > Did the staffer and the Miss Universe contestant just commit a crime? You might need to add a little bit of detail to your hypothetical. It may not make a difference to the answer to your final question, but I think it’s important: Imagine that, in summer 2016, a top Hillary Clinton campaign staffer gets a message: "A Russian contact just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting. The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Clinton campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Trump and would be very useful to your candidate. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information **but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Ms. Clinton** - helped along by my contacts. Our contact has stolen some information that says that “A Miss Universe contestant — Miss Slovakia says that Donald Trump had sexually assaulted her. Would you like to get this stolen information?” The staffer says, “I’d love to,” and indeed gets the information by meeting surreptitiously, along with Bill Clinton, and Hillary’s campaign manager, which he then uses in the campaign. He denies every having anything to do with any Russians, and his colleagues, who have also met with Russians, deny every having done so. These colleagues swear an oath that they have never met with Russians, but change their stories as details come out. When confronted with the story, he first says he only met to discuss poor orphans. As more of the truth comes out, he releases the emails. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/184 "2017-07-13T04:46:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure, some did. > > Not me. For example: I know you didn’t. Hence my using “many” instead of making a blanket statement about all conservatives/republicans. I wasn’t trying to suggest otherwise. If you would be so kind, would you please explain why the law concerning info being shared by a foreign government wouldn’t qualify as having value? I’m referring to the exchange you and I had upthread with the link to Cornell University. And, if possible, could you explain it in layman’s terms? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/185 "2017-07-13T05:28:23Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > This information is not stolen. 1. Who says the non-existent information that the Russian lawyer was peddling was “stolen”? 2. The law forbidding foreigners contributing any “thing of value” to campaigns says nothing about information being stolen or not. So it is irrelevant to that law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/186 "2017-07-13T05:28:50Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > This information is not stolen. Where does the law in question make that distinction? In other words, why do you believe this is relevant? Also please note that the DNC hack became public knowledge June 16th, 2016. [Cite.](http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-hacking-fast-facts/index.html) Donald Jr’s mail exchange was June 3rd, 2016. [Cite.](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-russia-email-clinton.html?action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=65556520&pgtype=Homepage) I mention this only to point out there doesn’t seem to be a way to suggest he knew the material was the result of an illegal hack. But even if he did, where do you see that factor being an element of the law involved here? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/187 "2017-07-13T05:55:43Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > I know you didn’t. Hence my using “many” instead of making a blanket statement about all conservatives/republicans. I wasn’t trying to suggest otherwise. > > If you would be so kind, would you please explain why the law concerning info being shared by a foreign government wouldn’t qualify as having value? I’m referring to the exchange you and I had upthread with the link to Cornell University. > > And, if possible, could you explain it in layman’s terms? Sure. If that interpretation is correct, then I can give you lots of examples of things that the law would ban that are clearly protected by the First Amendment. That would make the law _substantially overbroad_, and constitutionally invalid as a result. For example, remember Alicia Machado? She revealed to the [Clinton campaign that Trump had called her “Miss Piggy,”](https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/780611407221960704?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2016%2F09%2F27%2F495611105%2Fin-post-debate-interview-trump-again-criticizes-pageant-winners-weight) and other names related to her weight. Mrs. Clinton used this information during the September 26th debate. An hour after the debate ended, her campaign tweeted a two-minute video they had compiled about Machado’s experience with Trump, in which she explains at lengths the various insults Trump subjected her to. Machado is Venezuelan. But I think it’s very clear that Machado had every right under the First Amendment to approach the Clinton campaign to share her story. (_Bridges v. Wixon_, (“freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country. . .”) The Clinton campaign had a First Amendment right to use the information as assistance in the campaign as they did, because Americans have a right to receive information from foreign sources (see _Lamont v. Postmaster General_). Moreover, I think if anyone had suggested that Clinton’s use of Machado’s information was illegal because it was a “thing of value,” supplied by a foreigner, the reactions would have been swift and decisive rejecting such a theory. If the Clinton campaign had learned that Mar-Lago was employing illegal aliens and had tried to verify this by speaking to one, that, too, would be protected First Amendment conduct. So the reason that the interpretation you advance is not correct is: if it were, the law would encroach on protected First Amendment conduct. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/188 "2017-07-13T06:01:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Machado is Venezuelan. ETA too late: In checking this, I see Machado became a US citizen in May 2016, so this illustration is not a good one in its specifics. But the general point remains. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/189 "2017-07-13T06:07:40Z")
Fair enough, and thanks for the explanation without excessive legal jargon. Is that actually settled case law, or just a likely interpretation? And, in your hypothetical, is it significant that Machado isn’t an employee of the Venezuelan government, or connected to them? I would think (and, again, I’ll defer to you on this) that a private citizen approaching a party to give a personal anecdote is different from someone connected to a government approaching a party with information about a 3rd party. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/190 "2017-07-13T06:12:56Z")
Why even bother having this conversation when it’s certain that this is not where this story ends? ---
**Author:** ![galen\_ubal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/galen_ubal/32/4440_2.png) [@galen\_ubal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galen_ubal)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/191 "2017-07-13T06:39:07Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Why even bother having this conversation when it’s certain that this is not where this story ends? Diversion from the hypothetical posed in the OP. Most indicative. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/192 "2017-07-13T06:40:05Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > Fair enough, and thanks for the explanation without excessive legal jargon. Is that actually settled case law, or just a likely interpretation? The two cases I cited are settled law, of course, and the principle of substantial overbreadth invalidating a law is also a settled principle. There is no case that I can find directly construing the law under these circumstances. In other words, no one has ever attempted to prosecute this kind of conduct and made it stick through appeals. > [@](#): > > And, in your hypothetical, is it significant that Machado isn’t an employee of the Venezuelan government, or connected to them? I would think (and, again, I’ll defer to you on this) that a private citizen approaching a party to give a personal anecdote is different from someone connected to a government approaching a party with information about a 3rd party. The regulation here does not differentiate: > [@11 CFR 110.20](#): > > (3)Foreign national means - > > (i) A foreign principal, as defined in 22 U.S.C. 611(b); or > > (ii) An individual who is not a citizen of the United States and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20); ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/193 "2017-07-13T07:07:56Z")
> [@galen\_ubal](#): > > Diversion from the hypothetical posed in the OP. Most indicative. Or we can wait a week and revisit it with all the new information that will be out by then. Wanna put a timer on it? ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/194 "2017-07-13T08:17:41Z")
The innocent do not get pardoned. The innocent do not need to be pardoned. So what say you, Trump? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/195 "2017-07-13T10:49:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > When you see accusations of wrongdoing about your political opponents on the Internet, would you say you typically wait for the police to render judgement, or would you say you’re comfortable with convicting them “in the court of public opinion?” When stuff is on the internet, it is there for everyone to see, police included. I’m not impeding their work by having someone give me the evidence in lieu of giving it to the police. So I’m comfortable lambasting someone based on things I see online, though I do take pains to make sure the sourcing is someone I trust. My doing so in no way hinders any official investigation. > [@Bricker](#): > > Stealing this illustration from Eugene Volokh: > > Imagine that, in summer 2016, a top Hillary Clinton campaign staffer gets a message: “A Miss Universe contestant — Miss Slovakia — says that Donald Trump had sexually assaulted her. Would you like to get her story?” The staffer says, “I’d love to,” and indeed gets the information, which he then uses in the campaign. > > Did the staffer and the Miss Universe contestant just commit a crime? If a victim comes to you and wants to tell a story, that is their choice. The staffer should hear them out, then encourage them to go to the authorities and the media with the same story. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/196 "2017-07-13T12:43:06Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > When stuff is on the internet, it is there for everyone to see, police included. I’m not impeding their work by having someone give me the evidence in lieu of giving it to the police. So I’m comfortable lambasting someone based on things I see online, though I do take pains to make sure the sourcing is someone I trust. My doing so in no way hinders any official investigation. > > If a victim comes to you and wants to tell a story, that is their choice. The staffer should hear them out, then encourage them to go to the authorities and the media with the same story. That’s not what happened with Alicia Machado, though – is it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/197 "2017-07-13T12:44:18Z")
> [@DWMarch](#): > > The innocent do not get pardoned. The innocent do not need to be pardoned. So what say you, Trump? That’s worth repeating – the acceptance of a pardon carries with it an implication of guilt. One cannot simultaneously accept a pardon and claim innocence. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/198 "2017-07-13T12:50:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not what happened with Alicia Machado, though – is it? Only because Hillary’s campaign was quite late to the party. [She announced her plans to write a book exposing Donald as a sexual predator in July 2015.](http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/latin/6627228/alicia-machado-donald-trump-book-former-miss-universe) By the time Hillary brought it up in a debate, it was old news. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/199 "2017-07-13T13:03:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s worth repeating – the acceptance of a pardon carries with it an implication of guilt. One cannot simultaneously accept a pardon and claim innocence. Wait, I’m actually curious about this; why is this necessarily true? Let us suppose, for instance, that Jim is convicted of a murder he did not commit. It is revealed some years later - for fun, we’ll say it’s Season 15 of “To Make a Murderer” - that the prosecution was extremely wrongful, and Jim was framed by the police. However, he has exhausted his appeals. The evidence of the frame job explodes into the public sphere and there’s smoking guns all over the place, but with no appeals left and an intrasigent DA, Jim remains in prison. With an outraged public screaming for Jim’s release, the governor pardons him and he is released from prison to cheers. Surely Jim has not admitted guilt by leaving his cell? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/200 "2017-07-13T13:17:59Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Wait, I’m actually curious about this; why is this necessarily true? > > Let us suppose, for instance, that Jim is convicted of a murder he did not commit. It is revealed some years later - for fun, we’ll say it’s Season 15 of “To Make a Murderer” - that the prosecution was extremely wrongful, and Jim was framed by the police. However, he has exhausted his appeals. The evidence of the frame job explodes into the public sphere and there’s smoking guns all over the place, but with no appeals left and an intrasigent DA, Jim remains in prison. With an outraged public screaming for Jim’s release, the governor pardons him and he is released from prison to cheers. > > Surely Jim has not admitted guilt by leaving his cell? The governor in that case might instead _commute the sentence_, which may be done without the recipient’s consent (Biddle v. Perovich). But a pardon, to be effective, must be both granted and accepted: > [@SCOTUS](#): > > [C]onfession of guilt implied in the acceptance of a pardon may be rejected, preferring to be the victim of the law rather than its acknowledged transgressor, preferring death even to such certain infamy. This, at least theoretically, is a right, and a right is often best tested in its extreme. ‘It may be supposed,’ the court said in United States v. Wilson, 'that no being condemned to death would reject a pardon; but the rule must be the same in capital cases and in misdemeanors. Quoting _Burdick v US_. Now, I suppose a given state may have a different rule; I’m sharing the federal one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001.md?page=11)