# 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:** 11
**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, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/201 "2017-07-13T13:19:37Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > 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. OK. My only rejoinder is: no serious national political operative of either party would, in my opinion, act as you suggest. But I cannot gainsay your basic claim that the highest ethical behavior would be as you’re describing. ---
**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, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/202 "2017-07-13T14:40:38Z")
Your hypothetical does leave out some important details; - that the information was not to be provided by a victim, but rather by an intermediary - that the information was provided via a connection with a high level Russian government official (“Crown prosecutor”) (yes, I know that there is no such position - this is presumed to mean “the top federal prosecutor”) - that the person receiving the information was told in writing that "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for (your candidate). Let me repeat that last part; they were told that this information **“is part of Russia and its government’s support for (your candidate)”.** I think the addition of these relevant details changes your hypothetical from one of “listening to innocent lady victim” to "accepting information from a foreign government who is explicitly helping your candidate. Of course, you are still free to say that no actual crime was committed. ---
**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, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/203 "2017-07-13T14:44:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Quoting _Burdick v US_. > > Now, I suppose a given state may have a different rule; I’m sharing the federal one. Does Burdick v. US make it actual case law that the acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt? The material decision in Burdick was that a person receiving a pardon must accept a pardon for it to come to fruition (and to do so must introduce the pardon to court.) The point of the case what that Burdick himself did not want the pardon because the purpose of the pardon was to compel Burdick to testify; the pardon was a tactic to make him abandon his Fifth Amendment rights. However, people are who is pardoned unconditionally (I guess an executive could insist on such an admission as a condition of a pardon) are not generally required to do or say anything amounting to admitting guilt. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/204 "2017-07-13T14:50:15Z")
> [@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. When you don’t care if people think you guilty or innocent, only if you get away with it without penalty, a pardon can be an acceptable choice. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/205 "2017-07-13T15:08:05Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Your hypothetical does leave out some important details; > > - that the information was not to be provided by a victim, but rather by an intermediary > - that the information was provided via a connection with a high level Russian government official (“Crown prosecutor”) (yes, I know that there is no such position - this is presumed to mean “the top federal prosecutor”) > - that the person receiving the information was told in writing that "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for (your candidate). > > Let me repeat that last part; they were told that this information **“is part of Russia and its government’s support for (your candidate)”.** > > I think the addition of these relevant details changes your hypothetical from one of “listening to innocent lady victim” to "accepting information from a foreign government who is explicitly helping your candidate. Of course, you are still free to say that no actual crime was committed. It’s been pointed out more than once that those aren’t important or relevant details legally. Politically yes but they don’t get any mention in the statute under discussion. ---
**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, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/206 "2017-07-13T15:21:35Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > It’s been pointed out more than once that those aren’t important or relevant details legally. Politically yes but they don’t get any mention in the statute under discussion. Perhaps so… and I realize we are now playing the game of “lawyers in the courtroom”. And there are good opinions from people who say that Trump Jr. did not commit an act which would reasonably lead to a successful prosecution. I can see that. However, these details do form an important part of the overall story, which should not be looked at in a strictly legalistic way, using only the rules of the courtroom. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/207 "2017-07-13T15:31:29Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Perhaps so… and I realize we are now playing the game of “lawyers in the courtroom”. > > And there are good opinions from people who say that Trump Jr. did not commit an act which would reasonably lead to a successful prosecution. I can see that. > > However, these details do form an important part of the overall story, which should not be looked at in a strictly legalistic way, using only the rules of the courtroom… Not sure if you mean “now” as in “recently, in the thread” or “for the entirety of this thread”, but if not the latter, I’ll just point out that the very first line in the OP is: \*Let’s say the feds filed criminal charges against Donald Trump Jr. \* There are lots of other threads where the political implications are being discussed. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/208 "2017-07-13T15:46:01Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > However, these details do form an important part of the overall story, which should not be looked at in a strictly legalistic way, using only the rules of the courtroom. Especially if we’re only beginning to learn the full story. Mueller will do what he needs to do when he’s ready to do it. ---
**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, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/209 "2017-07-13T15:50:13Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Especially if we’re only beginning to learn the full story. > > Mueller will do what he needs to do when he’s ready to do it. As these things go, when more details come out, the storyline will shift to: - there is no reasonable expectation that there will be a conviction - this is just political. - Conviction? Meh, we must wait for the higher court to rule. There were clear mistakes made by the lower court. - It’s all behind us, no use looking at it now. Why do you keep digging up dirt on old cases? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/210 "2017-07-13T15:50:36Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Perhaps so… and I realize we are now playing the game of “lawyers in the courtroom”. > > And there are good opinions from people who say that Trump Jr. did not commit an act which would reasonably lead to a successful prosecution. I can see that. > > However, these details do form an important part of the overall story, which should not be looked at in a strictly legalistic way, using only the rules of the courtroom. Since you ended your post with “Of course, you are still free to say that no actual crime was committed.” I kind of assumed you were talking legalisticly. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/211 "2017-07-13T16:12:58Z")
I bet Trump misses James Comey now. Comey could have given a press conference saying, “What Don Jr. did was extremely stupid and he should be flogged with a wet noodle, but there’s no history of prosecuting actions like this” and Don Sr. would take it as total and complete vindication. ---
**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, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/212 "2017-07-13T16:14:32Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Since you ended your post with “Of course, you are still free to say that no actual crime was committed.” I kind of assumed you were talking legalisticly. I was acknowledging that the legal issues are indeed very important. But even in this thread (started about the legal ability of the president to pardon), we need to look at the whole picture, rather than a simplified version. Thus, I posited that it may be important to make a hypothetical look as close as possible to reality, by including the fact that the real situation involved explicit knowledge that the Russian government was involved, and supporting a campaign. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/213 "2017-07-13T16:26:23Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > That’s incoherent. The absolute certainty is BECAUSE there is no evidence. You forgot a phrase at the end of that: _that you know of before you’ve seen a single result from investigations which are ongoing and have not been published._ It’s your absolute certainty that’s incoherent. > [@](#): > > No one can show any evidence. When Senators of the opposing party (who’re supposed to know, they’re on committees and stuff) are asked directly, they say no, they haven’t seen any evidence. After months and months of searching and hysterical headlines - there is no evidence. That’s pure fantasy. Cite recent quotes that verify that. ---
**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, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/214 "2017-07-13T16:33:27Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Does Burdick v. US make it actual case law that the acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt? > > The material decision in Burdick was that a person receiving a pardon must accept a pardon for it to come to fruition (and to do so must introduce the pardon to court.) The point of the case what that Burdick himself did not want the pardon because the purpose of the pardon was to compel Burdick to testify; the pardon was a tactic to make him abandon his Fifth Amendment rights. > > However, people are who is pardoned unconditionally (I guess an executive could insist on such an admission as a condition of a pardon) are not generally required to do or say anything amounting to admitting guilt. Technically, the _Burdick_ language is dicta; the case itself decided only that a person was not required to accept a pardon. But subsequent cases have adopted the dicta about imputation of guilt as controlling many decisions related to expungement, restoration of civil liberties, and the like. The Burdick language has been quoted with approval in many state and federal cases, and I am unable to find any contrary holdings. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/215 "2017-07-13T16:35:34Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > I was acknowledging that the legal issues are indeed very important. But even in this thread (started about the legal ability of the president to pardon), we need to look at the whole picture, rather than a simplified version. > > Thus, I posited that it may be important to make a hypothetical look as close as possible to reality, by including the fact that the real situation involved explicit knowledge that the Russian government was involved, and supporting a campaign. Well one way to make your hypothetical extremely close to reality is to not use hypotheticals and just discuss reality. That could really upset the hypothetical industry though. ---
**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, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/216 "2017-07-13T16:39:10Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > That’s pure fantasy. Cite recent quotes that verify that. [Feinstein: No Evidence Of Russian Collusion With Trump Campaign, But There Are Rumors](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/19/feinstein_no_evidence_of_russian_collusion_with_trump_campaign_but_there_are_rumors.html) BLITZER: But, I just want to be precise, Senator. In all of the – you have had access from the Intelligence Committee, from the Judiciary Committee, all of the access you have had to very sensitive information, so far you have not seen any evidence of collusion, is that right? SEN. FEINSTEIN: Well, evidence that would establish that there’s collusion. There are all kinds of rumors around, there are newspaper stories, but that’s not necessarily evidence. [Sen. Manchin (Attended Classified Comey Hearing): No Evidence “Whatsoever” Of Trump-Russia Collusion](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/11/sen_manchin_attended_classified_comey_hearing_no_evidence_whatsoever_of_trump-russia_collusion.html) STEPHANOPOULOS; Do you agree with this conclusion that the president has reached that there was no evidence of collusion? MANCHIN: You know, we haven’t seen any of that whatsoever, George. We’ve been looking and showing everything they possibly have. That has not led to that. ---
**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, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/217 "2017-07-13T16:43:17Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Well one way to make your hypothetical extremely close to reality is to not use hypotheticals and just discuss reality. That could really upset the hypothetical industry though. Well sure. But I am just cautious when a hypothetical leaves out major details. Like a direct, plainspoken connection with a foreign government. Because this is not just about a campaign meeting with any old person to get dirt on an opponent. We can all agree that happens all the time. The fact that Don Trump Jr. KNEW in advance that this meeting involved a Russian government-connected official, and that the email explicitly said that the Russian government was trying to help Trump’s campaign is very relevant to the discussion in my opinion. Otherwise, we might as well say “political campaigns collect information about their opponents all the time, no big deal move on” And that would be true, without the Russian connections. So to remove the Russian connections from the hypothetical would remove the most important context. That’s my point. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/218 "2017-07-13T16:43:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. So let’s extend that. Are you now contending that Russian attempts to interfere in the election are protected free speech? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2017, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/219 "2017-07-13T16:50:38Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > So let’s extend that. Are you now contending that Russian attempts to interfere in the election are protected free speech? I think he’s saying that making it illegal to chat with a foreigner, regardless of subject (excluding classified information), would not pass a First Amendment test. ---
**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, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/220 "2017-07-13T17:35:22Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > So let’s extend that. Are you now contending that Russian attempts to interfere in the election are protected free speech? It depends on what “interfere” means. If “interfere” means accessing a voting machine and changing the totals, then: no. If “interfere” means a Russian citizen visiting the United States on a tourist visa who says to everyone she meets, “Vote Smith, and not Jones!” then: yes. What, specifically, does “interfere” mean when you used the word? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001.md?page=12)