# 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:** 15
**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 14, 2017, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/281 "2017-07-14T00:23:31Z")
Speak up, I can’t hear you. ---
**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 14, 2017, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/282 "2017-07-14T00:27:11Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I’m kind of taking a MSM break but when they refer to the email have they been noting that there is no Crown prosecutor in Russia. Perhaps owing to the lack of Crowns? > **[What the Heck Is a Russian 'Crown Prosecutor'?](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/russian-crown-prosecutor/533295/)** > > Technically, there’s no such position. But the man who holds the office’s nearest equivalent in Russia is a Putin loyalist of long standing. [https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/what-is-crown-prosecutor-of-russia-donald-trump-jr-emails-2017-7](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/what-is-crown-prosecutor-of-russia-donald-trump-jr-emails-2017-7) ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2017, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/283 "2017-07-14T00:28:21Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I’m kind of taking a MSM break but when they refer to the email have they been noting that there is no Crown prosecutor in Russia? Perhaps owing to the lack of Crowns? Goldstone is a Brit. This may explain it. ---
**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 14, 2017, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/284 "2017-07-14T00:36:15Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > [What the Heck Is a Russian 'Crown Prosecutor'? - The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/533295/) > > [https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/what-is-crown-prosecutor-of-russia-donald-trump-jr-emails-2017-7](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/what-is-crown-prosecutor-of-russia-donald-trump-jr-emails-2017-7) I have all the respect in the world for the Antlantic and some for the Business Insider, but I meant the real MSM like the networks, NYT and the like. I also meant in the main articles on the emails, not the “dig deeper” side articles. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2017, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/285 "2017-07-14T00:41:57Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I think this is probably true in the end (see Bartnicki and even US v. Stevens), but it would certainly be a fact relevant to the analysis of whether the First Amendment forbids criminalizing the solicitation of this particular thing of value, right? Yes, I agree on both counts. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2017, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/286 "2017-07-14T00:44:29Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > So such volunteer activity is _not_ considered to be a “thing of value”. Man, I sure wish I said that first. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2017, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/287 "2017-07-14T00:51:12Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Bricker, as for your questions about § 110.20 (or § 30121 which is what I quoted): it’s true that the US Code with regard to foreign donations makes no explicit reference to the method under which the information that constitutes the donation was acquired. My two points are: the demonstrated intention to receive illegally-obtained information has legal implications (and potentially, associated consequences) beyond § 30121; and the nature of the information being donated might have bearing in the question of the value of the donation. I agree. And I’m happy to discuss those implications. What are they, in your view? ---
**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 14, 2017, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/288 "2017-07-14T00:59:51Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I have all the respect in the world for the Antlantic and some for the Business Insider, but I meant the real MSM like the networks, NYT and the like. I also meant in the main articles on the emails, not the “dig deeper” side articles. Let’s say instead of the use of the term “crown prosecutor” in the email, a different title was used, like “attorney general,” “state’s attorney,” or “district attorney.” Would you expect newspapers to state that those positions don’t exist in Russia? Or let’s say someone is quoted in a newspaper as saying that Mr. So-and-So is a parliamentarian from a northern state in Japan. Should newspapers report that there are no states in Japan? ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2017, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/289 "2017-07-14T01:06:09Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > You’re not “just asking”, you’re also assuming that Trump jr knew that his meeting was to discuss illegally gained or illegal material. The law says that campaigns can’t accept anything of value from foreign governments. Don Jr was explicitly offered something of value from a foreign government. He responded with enthusiasm and went to the party expecting to receive the drugs. I mean, the item of value which was offered to him by a foreign government. When he did not receive the item of value, he left in disgust. The material was illegal on its face, being that it was an item of value being offered to help a US campaign by a foreign government. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2017, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/290 "2017-07-14T01:18:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Are you actually interested in the legal analysis? I’d be curious to hear you explain why the first amendment doesn’t protect people from seeking illegal substances. Not interested, obviously, because the answer is, obviously, “In this case, “the people” is a high-quality, wealthy, white, male Republican”. But, sure. Curious. Take your best shot. ---
**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 14, 2017, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/291 "2017-07-14T01:37:42Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Let’s say instead of the use of the term “crown prosecutor” in the email, a different title was used, like “attorney general,” “state’s attorney,” or “district attorney.” Would you expect newspapers to state that those positions don’t exist in Russia? > > Or let’s say someone is quoted in a newspaper as saying that Mr. So-and-So is a parliamentarian from a northern state in Japan. Should newspapers report that there are no states in Japan? Are you saying it’s odd for me to expect a respectable news outlet to point out factual inaccuracies in an email they are reporting on? That putting (note: Crown prosecutor is not a job title in Russia.) is a huge burden? And yes, why the hell shouldn’t they mention Japan has prefectures not states? Why would I defend the dumbing down of some of the simplest of facts? I guess they shouldn’t even worry about get the parliamentarian’s name right, cuz who cares amirite? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2017, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/292 "2017-07-14T01:48:48Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Don Jr was explicitly offered something of value from a foreign government. It may be something of value, or not. But this seems to be begging the question. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2017, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/293 "2017-07-14T01:50:29Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > I’d be curious to hear you explain why the first amendment doesn’t protect people from seeking illegal substances. > > Not interested, obviously, because the answer is, obviously, “In this case, “the people” is a high-quality, wealthy, white, male Republican”. > > But, sure. Curious. Take your best shot. Sure. The First Amendment does not protect all speech. Some speech it doesn’t protect at all, like obscenity, defamation, and fraud. Some speech it protects, but not strongly, such as commercial speech. And some speech it protects most vigorously, like political speech. Would you like case cites for those statements? To answer your question: speech intended to immediately acquire controlled substances is not protected by the First Amendment because it is an element of the crime of attempted possession of contraband. **Proof of the intent element of a crime by means of words uttered does not infringe First Amendment rights**. (_Street v. New York_, 394 US 576 (1969). Does that answer your question? Do you have an opposing point to raise, one which you can support with cites? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2017, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/294 "2017-07-14T01:51:30Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It may be something of value, or not. But this seems to be begging the question. I think it’s pretty clearly “something of value.” I provided cites for that proposition earlier in the thread, in post 113: > [@Bricker](#): > > As the Second Circuit explained: > > > [@](#): > > > > [W]e are impressed by Congress’ repeated use of the phrase “thing of value” in section 641 and its predecessors. These words are found in so many criminal statutes throughout the United States that they have in a sense become words of art. **The word “thing” notwithstanding, the phrase is generally construed to cover intangibles as well as tangibles**. For example, amusement is held to be a thing of value under gambling statutes. . . Sexual intercourse, or the promise of sexual intercourse, is a thing of value under a bribery statute. . . . So also are a promise to reinstate an employee, . . . and an agreement not to run in a primary election. . . The testimony of a witness is a thing of value under 18 U.S.C. § 876, which prohibits threats made through the mails with the intent to extort money or any other “thing of value.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2017, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/295 "2017-07-14T01:55:49Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > The law says that campaigns can’t accept anything of value from foreign governments. Don Jr was explicitly offered something of value from a foreign government. He responded with enthusiasm and went to the party expecting to receive the drugs. I mean, the item of value which was offered to him by a foreign government. When he did not receive the item of value, he left in disgust. > > The material was illegal on its face, being that it was an item of value being offered to help a US campaign by a foreign government. The difference in this analysis is that drugs are not protected by the First Amendment, but political speech generally is. Making speech illegal on its face is a First Amendment problem, and making drugs illegal is not. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2017, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/296 "2017-07-14T01:59:20Z")
I don’t see any big deal on the use of “crown prosecutor.” Hell, the TV show NCIS supposedly takes place (often) in Virginia, but the writers refer to the district attorney all the time, not realizing that in Virginia we have a Commonwealth Attorney. Point being: the e-mail writer was not a sophisticated analyst, and was using a term he understood. The misuse of that term means nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2017, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/297 "2017-07-14T02:07:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Point being: the e-mail writer was not a sophisticated analyst, and was using a term he understood. The misuse of that term means nothing. No, it doesn’t. It really grates, though, when the term “Crown prosecutor” gets repeated over and over, when it is so wildly inappropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2017, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/298 "2017-07-14T03:03:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think it’s pretty clearly “something of value.” I provided cites for that proposition earlier in the thread, in post 113: I should have added…‘outside the scope of the 1st amendment’. My bad. ---
**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 14, 2017, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/299 "2017-07-14T05:23:28Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Are you saying it’s odd for me to expect a respectable news outlet to point out factual inaccuracies in an email they are reporting on? That putting (note: Crown prosecutor is not a job title in Russia.) is a huge burden? > > And yes, why the hell shouldn’t they mention Japan has prefectures not states? Why would I defend the dumbing down of some of the simplest of facts? I guess they shouldn’t even worry about get the parliamentarian’s name right, cuz who cares amirite? Not sure what reports you saw, but CNN included that in the first one I saw. I don’t see where it’s required every time they report on the emails specifically, though. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2017, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/300 "2017-07-14T06:45:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. > > The First Amendment does not protect all speech. Some speech it doesn’t protect at all, like obscenity, defamation, and fraud. Some speech it protects, but not strongly, such as commercial speech. And some speech it protects most vigorously, like political speech. Right. But the key point of that is the First Amendment does not protect _all_ speech - not even all political speech. For example, making sincere verbal threats against the President is a crime and people have gone to jail for it. ([example A](http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/274388-man-sentenced-to-prison-for-threatening-to-kill-obama) [example b](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/oregon/articles/2017-05-13/oregon-man-threatening-to-kill-barack-obama-gets-prison-time)) > [@](#): > > Would you like case cites for those statements? Not at this time (I’m sure you have them). > [@](#): > > To answer your question: speech intended to immediately acquire controlled substances is not protected by the First Amendment because it is an element of the crime of attempted possession of contraband. **Proof of the intent element of a crime by means of words uttered does not infringe First Amendment rights**. (_Street v. New York_, 394 US 576 (1969). My point is, specifically, your statement, right here. Specifically - **“speech intended to immediately acquire [controlled substances] is not protected by the First Amendment because it is an element of the crime”.** Brackets and bolding, mine. In my hypothetical the [controlled substances] are a specific class of drug. In the example of Don Jr., the [controlled substances] are “items of value given by a foreign government to assist a US political campaign.” Don Jr’s verbal acceptance of the [item of value] and his actions in attending a meeting to immediately acquire the [item of value] are not protected by the First Amendment because that speech is an element of the crime of acquiring an item of value from a foreign government. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001.md?page=16)