# 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:** 16
**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, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/301 "2017-07-14T10:22:14Z")
> [@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? I think because there’s a difference between informing the public and nitpicking. If news outlets want to describe the discrepancy, great. If they don’t, nobody is actually missing any important facts that impact the story in a substantive way. Who knows if there are other ways to nitpick Rob Goldstone’s emails. I can say that when President Trump says substantively flat out false things, the right wingers get all upset that the media bothers to correct the record on things that do matter (e.g.; “I never supported the war in Iraq.”) ---
**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, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/302 "2017-07-14T12:00:05Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > 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. There are differences; a key one is that “speech intended to immediately acquire controlled substances” has extremely weak First Amendment protections to begin with, but “speech to assist a US political campaign” has extremely strong First Amendment protection. That’s why I started by reminding you that First Amendment protection varies by the type of speech involved. If the First Amendment analysis simply stopped with “it’s an element of the crime,” then a moment’s thought would reveal that any First Amendment protection would be eviscerated. A law that criminalized criticizing the mayor in the town park would of course make “speech in the park critical of the mayor” an element of the crime – right? In my explanations above, I tried to highlight BOTH that the speech to acquire controlled substances is an element of the crime AND that speech to acquire controlled substances does not fall into the category of strongly protected speech. In doing so, I may have left you with the impression that speech to acquire controlled substances does not fall into the category of strongly protected speech BECAUSE speech to acquire controlled substances is an element of a crime. That’s not the case. Speech to acquire controlled substances does not fall into the category of strongly protected speech because (at best) it’s commercial speech, not political, expressive speech. The courts have long drawn lines between those types of speech (see e.g._Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York_, holding that the Constitution accords a lesser protection to commercial speech than to other constitutionally guaranteed expression). In your reply, you are weighing both political speech and speech to acquire controlled substances equally, but that’s not how the correct analysis is done. ---
**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, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/303 "2017-07-14T12:06:02Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I think because there’s a difference between informing the public and nitpicking. If news outlets want to describe the discrepancy, great. If they don’t, nobody is actually missing any important facts that impact the story in a substantive way. Plus one. While it might be nice for news sources to spend an extra two sentences pointing out the correct nomenclature for Russian prosecutors, it’s not really relevant to any issue in debate. It’s not like Don Jr can say, “The law clearly immunizes my conduct: I was dealing with a crown prosecutor, after all!” The title of the Russian source has no relevance that I can see. ---
**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, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/304 "2017-07-14T12:35:21Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > 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)) I’m writing this post separately because it’s a great illustration (if you’re a law geek, anyway) of how First Amendment political speech analysis works. Back in 1966, at an anti-war rally, a young man named Watts announced, “They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J.” (referring to then-President Lyndon Baines Johnson). He was arrested and convicted for threatening to kill the President. But the Supreme Court overturned his conviction. They did not overturn the law prohibiting threats against the President, but they found that this law, _as applied to Watts_, violated the First Amendment. Why? > [@SCOTUS](#): > > Certainly the statute under which petitioner was convicted is constitutional on its face. The Nation undoubtedly has a valid, even an overwhelming, interest in protecting the safety of its Chief Executive and in allowing him to perform his duties without interference from threats of physical violence . . . Nevertheless, a statute such as this one, which makes criminal a form of pure speech, must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind. What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech. They go on to explain that when political speech is involved: > [@](#): > > For we must interpret the language Congress chose “against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”. . . The language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes. . . is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact. We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was “a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President.” Taken in context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners, we do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_what_you_d_expect/32/3246_2.png) [@not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_what_you_d_expect)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2017, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/305 "2017-07-14T12:48:18Z")
There was someone else in the room too. Does this change anything? > **[Former Soviet counterintelligence officer at meeting With Donald Trump Jr....](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russian-lawyer-brought-ex-soviet-counter-intelligence-officer-trump-team-n782851)** > > The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. was accompanied by a Russian-American lobbyist — a former Soviet counterintelligence officer, NBC News has learned. From the article. “WASHINGTON — The Russian lawyer who met with the Trump team after a promise of compromising material on Hillary Clinton was accompanied by a Russian-American lobbyist — a former Soviet counter intelligence officer who is suspected by some U.S. officials of having ongoing ties to Russian intelligence, NBC News has learned.” ---
**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, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/306 "2017-07-14T12:52:58Z")
> [@not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](#): > > There was someone else in the room too. Does this change anything? > > [Former Soviet Counterintelligence Officer at Meeting With Donald Trump Jr. and Russian Lawyer](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russian-lawyer-brought-ex-soviet-counter-intelligence-officer-trump-team-n782851) > > From the article. > > “WASHINGTON — The Russian lawyer who met with the Trump team after a promise of compromising material on Hillary Clinton was accompanied by a Russian-American lobbyist — a former Soviet counter intelligence officer who is suspected by some U.S. officials of having ongoing ties to Russian intelligence, NBC News has learned.” So the Russian lawyer was accompanied by a US citizen who lobbies for Russia. The horror! ---
**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 14, 2017, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/307 "2017-07-14T13:07:47Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > So the Russian lawyer was accompanied by a US citizen who lobbies for Russia. The horror! One wonders what it would take to make you concerned. We don’t have a smoking gun, it’s a smoking cannon. But then some would get hung up on definitions- it’s not really a cannon, it’s a howitzer. It’s not smoking, it’s emitting fumes. And it may not have been fired. Someone else fired it. But it missed anyway. And so on… ---
**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, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/308 "2017-07-14T13:13:10Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > One wonders what it would take to make you concerned. Oh, that’s easy. The litmus test for him to consider something a scandal is whether a Clinton was involved. Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, George Clinton and Parliament-Funkadelic – any of those people are needed for a scandal. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2017, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/309 "2017-07-14T13:30:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **CarnalK** : > > 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? And would you also expect a newspaper to point out that Japan has ken, not prefectures? There is a position that is roughly analogous in the US, the UK, and Russia. In the US, it’s called a district attorney. In the UK, it’s called a crown prosecutor. In Russia, it’s called… Well, I’m not sure what it’s called in Russia, because I don’t speak Russian, but it’s called something in Russian. The translation of that word Russian word in American English would be “district attorney”, and the translation in British English would be “crown prosecutor”. All that happened here is that some translator translated into the wrong dialect of English. ---
**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, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/310 "2017-07-14T14:05:11Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > One wonders what it would take to make you concerned. We don’t have a smoking gun, it’s a smoking cannon. But then some would get hung up on definitions- it’s not really a cannon, it’s a howitzer. It’s not smoking, it’s emitting fumes. And it may not have been fired. Someone else fired it. But it missed anyway. And so on… Speaking only for myself, this Russia information is only mildly concerning. When a man is drowning in the ocean, does pouring a teacup of water on his head greatly concern him? If I were to learn today that the whole Russia story was a massive fraud, that Trump’s campaign in no way did a thing even slightly questionable with anyone Russian . . . we’d still be facing a President who is so far outside the bounds of political norms as to be historically aberrant, so crude and unlettered and crass as to have bragged about grabbing genitals because he’s wealthy and famous, so dismissive of truth that he contradicts himself with a straight face on TV, so unconcerned with anything except advancing his brand at the expense of the national interest, so . . . Well, you get the idea. The Russia stories bear investigation, and I think (as always) it’s important to distinguish hyperbole from reality when it comes to legal issues. But I won’t think much worse of him if they’re true and I won’t think any better of him if they’re false. So my concern is slight. Trump needs to go, for many good and valuable reasons. Russia isn’t in my top five. ---
**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 14, 2017, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/311 "2017-07-14T14:16:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Speaking only for myself, this Russia information is only mildly concerning. > > When a man is drowning in the ocean, does pouring a teacup of water on his head greatly concern him? > > If I were to learn today that the whole Russia story was a massive fraud, that Trump’s campaign in no way did a thing even slightly questionable with anyone Russian . . . we’d still be facing a President who is so far outside the bounds of political norms as to be historically aberrant, so crude and unlettered and crass as to have bragged about grabbing genitals because he’s wealthy and famous, so dismissive of truth that he contradicts himself with a straight face on TV, so unconcerned with anything except advancing his brand at the expense of the national interest, so . . . > > Well, you get the idea. The Russia stories bear investigation, and I think (as always) it’s important to distinguish hyperbole from reality when it comes to legal issues. But I won’t think much worse of him if they’re true and I won’t think any better of him if they’re false. So my concern is slight. Trump needs to go, for many good and valuable reasons. Russia isn’t in my top five. If you’ve got something better to work with, great. But this seems to be a hammer that is falling into our hands and Donald sure looks like a nail. ---
**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, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/312 "2017-07-14T14:40:09Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > If you’ve got something better to work with, great. But this seems to be a hammer that is falling into our hands and Donald sure looks like a nail. My problem with this sentiment is that it’s the same sort of reasoning that Trump leveraged when he attacked Clinton for e-mails. Clinton’s e-mail judgement may not have been the best, but her conduct was not criminal. One of the many reasons I opposed Trump was his cynical willingness to use innuendo against Clinton and chant “Lock her up,” when he knew, or should have known, that she was not guilty of any crimes, a point I made forcefully here during the campaign. I certainly approve of investigations continuing, in an effort to confirm or dispel the notion of criminal wrong-doing. I do NOT approve of the willingness to use innuendo and suggest, without accuracy, criminal guilt before the investigation uncovers it. (I admit there’s a certain “sauce for the goose,” retribution aspect that isn’t completely unpleasing, but still). ---
**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 14, 2017, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/313 "2017-07-14T14:52:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My problem with this sentiment is that it’s the same sort of reasoning that Trump leveraged when he attacked Clinton for e-mails. Clinton’s e-mail judgement may not have been the best, but her conduct was not criminal. One of the many reasons I opposed Trump was his cynical willingness to use innuendo against Clinton and chant “Lock her up,” when he knew, or should have known, that she was not guilty of any crimes, a point I made forcefully here during the campaign. > > I certainly approve of investigations continuing, in an effort to confirm or dispel the notion of criminal wrong-doing. I do NOT approve of the willingness to use innuendo and suggest, without accuracy, criminal guilt before the investigation uncovers it. (I admit there’s a certain “sauce for the goose,” retribution aspect that isn’t completely unpleasing, but still). That’s a perfectly reasonable position to take. I happen to think that the Russia probe has potential to uncover criminal if not treasonous activity and if it puts these guys behind bars, great. My fear is that there is so much stuff to investigate now that the time required to do a thorough job may take us beyond 2020, by which time who cares? I wish to acknowledge and applaud your willingness to go against Don the Con despite the fact that he is leading your preferred party. I hope that I shall be as principled as you should an equally unqualified and ethically bankrupt Democrat ever earn the presidency. ---
**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, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/314 "2017-07-14T14:56:38Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And would you also expect a newspaper to point out that Japan has ken, not prefectures? There is a position that is roughly analogous in the US, the UK, and Russia. In the US, it’s called a district attorney. In the UK, it’s called a crown prosecutor. In Russia, it’s called… Well, I’m not sure what it’s called in Russia, because I don’t speak Russian, but it’s called something in Russian. The translation of that word Russian word in American English would be “district attorney”, and the translation in British English would be “crown prosecutor”. All that happened here is that some translator translated into the wrong dialect of English. No, I doubt the British translation would insert the word “crown” into the job title. Looking around, I see no reason for news outlets to take the email’s description of her at face value. > [@](#): > > So is she a well-networked insider relaying secret Kremlin information, or a chancer who somehow managed to get into the room with three top Trump advisers in the midst of a presidential campaign? > > The truth may end up being a blurry combination of both. Veselnitskaya is no Kremlin power broker, having spent most of her career working on business disputes in the courtrooms of the Moscow region, a province that surrounds but does not include the city itself. > > Nevertheless, in recent years she had taken on a high-profile case that aligned with Kremlin objectives and was followed closely by top officials. A source who knows her also told the Guardian she has a long-standing personal connection with Yuri Chaika, Russia’s powerful prosecutor-general. [Who is Natalia Veselnitskaya: low-level lawyer or Kremlin power broker?](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/12/who-is-natalia-veselnitskaya-low-level-lawyer-or-kremlin-power-broker) Doesn’t sound like a Crown Prosecuter’s or District Attorney’s job description. And note that UK article quote ends with “Russia’s prosecuter-general”, not some British equivalent title. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2017, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/315 "2017-07-14T15:23:56Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > No, I doubt the British translation would insert the word “crown” into the job title. Looking around, I see no reason for news outlets to take the email’s description of her at face value. I am not sure of your doubt. The term Crown prosecutor _was_ used. It was used by a british citizen, in speaking about a russian position. It would be like if you referred to a prosecutor in england as a district attorney. This was not some translation service, this was some guy relating information in the context in which he knew. > [@](#): > > [Who is Natalia Veselnitskaya: low-level lawyer or Kremlin power broker?](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/12/who-is-natalia-veselnitskaya-low-level-lawyer-or-kremlin-power-broker) > Doesn’t sound like a Crown Prosecuter’s or District Attorney’s job description. And note that UK article quote ends with “Russia’s prosecuter-general”, not some British equivalent title. Yes, and your article points out that she has a long relationship with that prosecutor-general. If you only nit is about the use of the wrong term, you are about 3 Kevin Bacon’s away from the actual person who used it. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2017, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/316 "2017-07-14T15:39:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I certainly approve of investigations continuing, in an effort to confirm or dispel the notion of criminal wrong-doing. I do NOT approve of the willingness to use innuendo and suggest, without accuracy, criminal guilt before the investigation uncovers it. (I admit there’s a certain “sauce for the goose,” retribution aspect that isn’t completely unpleasing, but still). I share the view that whether Trump committed a crime related to Russia collusion or not doesn’t have much impact on my view of Trump, and that we don’t know which one is the case yet. But in my view this story is more about political norms and political accountability, as well as the real world consequences of Trump’s behavior with regard to Russia. It should not be politically acceptable to encourage, know about, and benefit from a hostile nation’s crimes against your political opponents in order to get elected. If we do nothing effective to try to enforce that norm, things are only going to get much worse. I genuinely fear for the legitimacy of our elections if all bets are off in terms of welcoming foreign manipulation. The foreign policy aspects are also very troubling. Already we know allies are refusing to share intelligence information with us as a result of Trump’s relationship with Russia. And I think it’s fair to suspect that NATO is weaker now than when Trump came into office as a result of his foreign policy toward NATO and Russia. I would like to see us get a lot less focused on criminal law and a lot more focused on what is acceptable as a matter of electoral norms and foreign policy. It may be that the GOP Congress is uninterested in either of them if it means damaging Trump, but if so, then that’s something the voters should know going into 2018. ---
**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, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/317 "2017-07-14T16:01:21Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I am not sure of your doubt. The term Crown prosecutor _was_ used. It was used by a british citizen, in speaking about a russian position. It would be like if you referred to a prosecutor in england as a district attorney. > > This was not some translation service, this was some guy relating information in the context in which he knew. > > Yes, and your article points out that she has a long relationship with that prosecutor-general. If you only nit is about the use of the wrong term, you are about 3 Kevin Bacon’s away from the actual person who used it. My “nit” is that you guys are defending sloppy reporting about a rather important detail. I am not defending Trump at all, but some of you are happy to toss around that she is a government lawyer or a Crown prosecutor because then her links to the Russian government make a tidy sound bite. But while I have little doubt she was there to represent government interests, the direct line to Putin is a little murkier than that. Most of her career has been in business disputes. ---
**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 14, 2017, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/318 "2017-07-14T17:06:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My problem with this sentiment is that it’s the same sort of reasoning that Trump leveraged when he attacked Clinton for e-mails. Clinton’s e-mail judgement may not have been the best, but her conduct was not criminal. One of the many reasons I opposed Trump was his cynical willingness to use innuendo against Clinton and chant “Lock her up,” when he knew, or should have known, that she was not guilty of any crimes, a point I made forcefully here during the campaign. > > I certainly approve of investigations continuing, in an effort to confirm or dispel the notion of criminal wrong-doing. I do NOT approve of the willingness to use innuendo and suggest, without accuracy, criminal guilt before the investigation uncovers it. (I admit there’s a certain “sauce for the goose,” retribution aspect that isn’t completely unpleasing, but still). From a recent[Charles Krauthammer](http://nationalpost.com/opinion/charles-krauthammer-with-collusion-shown-trump-apologists-now-pathetically-claim-russian-collusion-is-no-big-deal/wcm/f2a67131-049e-443a-9d98-50fd7e7aeb5b)column: > [@](#): > > There is no statute against helping a foreign hostile power meddle in an American election. What Donald Jr.—and Kushner and Manafort—did may not be criminal. But it is not merely stupid. It is also deeply wrong, a fundamental violation of any code of civic honour. > > I leave it to the lawyers to adjudicate the legalities of unconsummated collusion. But you don’t need a lawyer to see that the Trump defence—collusion as a desperate Democratic fiction designed to explain away a lost election—is now officially dead. Legal arguments are fine, and indeed powerful in their proper setting. We don’t need to rely on them exclusively to know wrong from right though. ---
**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 14, 2017, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/319 "2017-07-14T17:08:42Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > My “nit” is that you guys are defending sloppy reporting about a rather important detail. I am not defending Trump at all, but some of you are happy to toss around that she is a government lawyer or a Crown prosecutor because then her links to the Russian government make a tidy sound bite. But while I have little doubt she was there to represent government interests, the direct line to Putin is a little murkier than that. Most of her career has been in business disputes. This is the kind of reporting I am seeing in almost every site I visit that talks about, and quotes the [content of the Trump Jr. email:](http://nationalpost.com/opinion/charles-krauthammer-with-collusion-shown-trump-apologists-now-pathetically-claim-russian-collusion-is-no-big-deal/wcm/f2a67131-049e-443a-9d98-50fd7e7aeb5b) > [@](#): > > A British go-between writes that there’s a Russian government effort to help Trump Sr. win the election, and as part of that effort he proposes a meeting with a “Russian government attorney” possessing damaging information on Hillary Clinton. Moreover, the Kremlin is willing to share troves of incriminating documents from the Crown Prosecutor. (Error: Britain has a Crown Prosecutor. Russia has a State Prosecutor.) From where I stand, your nits are few and far between. You are having to hunt to even find a nit in the first place. ---
**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, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/320 "2017-07-14T17:24:48Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > This is the kind of reporting I am seeing in almost every site I visit that talks about, and quotes the [content of the Trump Jr. email:](http://nationalpost.com/opinion/charles-krauthammer-with-collusion-shown-trump-apologists-now-pathetically-claim-russian-collusion-is-no-big-deal/wcm/f2a67131-049e-443a-9d98-50fd7e7aeb5b) > > From where I stand, your nits are few and far between. You are having to hunt to even find a nit in the first place. Yes, I’m sure it is better to read foreign news sources to get real reporting. Surprised you choose the National Post but good for you. But that doesn’t mean the nits aren’t in the American press and doesn’t explain why people here are defending the practice no matter how common it is or isn’t. Eta: and I will still say, this may be my ignorance of the Russian systems, but how many State Prosecuters spend their entire career involved in business disputes? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001.md?page=17)