# 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:** 23
**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 18, 2017, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/441 "2017-07-18T18:39:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How is that illegal? What law does that violate? I gotta go with [former US Attorney Chris Christie on this one:](https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=christie+says+donald+trump+jr+broke+law&spf=1500402985133) > [@](#): > > New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie told reporters on Monday it’s “probably against the law” to get opposition research from a foreign country, “in addition to being inappropriate.” > > Christie was asked by reporters about President Donald Trump’s eldest son’s meeting with Russians during the 2016 election. > > “I think there’s a law that says you can’t get anything of value from a foreign government in those situations” he said. “This is why you have the Department of Justice, to be able to do the kind of work and investigation that they typically do and will come to conclusions.” ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2017, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/442 "2017-07-18T18:45:53Z")
IIRC, the law in question says that one cannot solicit anything of value from foreigners (IIRC it doesn’t even specify reps of foreign governments – just non-Americans) in political campaigns, and that Don Jr.'s “I love it!” email and subsequent meetings might constitute intent to solicit something of value (damaging political information on the opponent). But IANAL. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2017, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/443 "2017-07-18T18:51:55Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > IIRC, the law in question says that one cannot solicit anything of value from foreigners (IIRC it doesn’t even specify reps of foreign governments – just non-Americans) in political campaigns, and that Don Jr.'s “I love it!” email and subsequent meetings might constitute intent to solicit something of value (damaging political information on the opponent). > > But IANAL. If that’s the legal theory behind **BigT** ’s “That is illegal” claim, he would seem to be on more solid (but still, from my IANAL perspective, quite shaky) legal ground to claim that Trump’s “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” That’s a hell of a lot closer to ‘soliciting something of value’ than “I love it!”, don’t you think? ---
**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 18, 2017, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/444 "2017-07-18T18:55:57Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I gotta go with [former US Attorney Chris Christie on this one:](https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=christie+says+donald+trump+jr+broke+law&spf=1500402985133) And you’ve generally trusted Christie’s legal opinions for approximately how long? “I think there’s a law” is powerful stuff though, so I could see how this statement alone could have won your admiration. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2017, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/445 "2017-07-18T19:06:44Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > If that’s the legal theory behind **BigT** ’s “That is illegal” claim, he would seem to be on more solid (but still, from my IANAL perspective, quite shaky) legal ground to claim that Trump’s “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” That’s a hell of a lot closer to ‘soliciting something of value’ than “I love it!”, don’t you think? I don’t know, and I’m not making any conclusions until Mueller (or other legal authority) brings forth their findings. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2017, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/446 "2017-07-18T19:17:28Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t know, and I’m not making any conclusions until Mueller (or other legal authority) brings forth their findings. Fair enough. That’s a prudent position. Maybe I’ll get an answer from **BigT** or **Thing Fish** or **BobLibDem** and then we can have a discussion on why the Obama administration did not prosecute such a public apparent violation of this ‘solicit something of value from foreigners’ law a year ago. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2017, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/447 "2017-07-18T19:20:08Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Fair enough. That’s a prudent position. > > Maybe I’ll get an answer from **BigT** or **Thing Fish** or **BobLibDem** and then we can have a discussion on why the Obama administration did not prosecute such a public apparent violation of this ‘solicit something of value from foreigners’ law a year ago. I expect Obama didn’t try to prosecute for a few reasons – firstly, they probably knew a lot less than they/we know now, and secondly, he didn’t want to be accused of interfering in the election. Such a prosecution very obviously is incredibly politically fraught, especially if it’s in the midst of a political campaign. ---
**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 18, 2017, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/448 "2017-07-18T19:39:09Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I expect Obama didn’t try to prosecute for a few reasons – firstly, they probably knew a lot less than they/we know now, and secondly, he didn’t want to be accused of interfering in the election. Such a prosecution very obviously is incredibly politically fraught, especially if it’s in the midst of a political campaign. Oh, no no. I’m very confident that if a year ago, Obama had started a public enquiry into the Trump campaign working with the Russians to interfere in the election, that the Republicans (and all those who support them on this board) would have been completely in favor of such an investigation, and into prosecutions if warranted. There was always great bipartisan respect for the office of the president in the past 8 years coming from Republicans in general. \ ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2017, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/449 "2017-07-18T19:48:05Z")
\*\*Hurricane: \*\*Trump’s public statement amounted only to “I sure hope someone else chooses to commit a crime, and I bet another third party would be happy to pay them to do so”. It’s a pretty scummy thing for someone who’s ostensibly a patriotic American to say, but he didn’t personally promise to pay for any stolen information. If he had said “Russia, I hope you’re able to find those emails, and when you do, please call my son and arrange for a top secret meeting to pass them off!”, it would be a somewhat different situation. Still, there would be a vast difference between making such a general, plausibly hyperbolic, statement in public and secretly responding to a specific offer to receive information from a foreign agent. Hope that helps. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2017, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/450 "2017-07-18T20:01:52Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > I can’t imagine that it doesn’t violate numerous espionage laws, but IANAL. It doesn’t violate any espionage laws. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2017, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/451 "2017-07-18T20:04:39Z")
Oh, well, if you say so. Guess Trump has nothing to worry about, then. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2017, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/452 "2017-07-18T20:17:12Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I gotta go with [former US Attorney Chris Christie on this one:](https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=christie+says+donald+trump+jr+broke+law&spf=1500402985133) Do you generally hold Christie’s opinion on the law to be authoritative? He says, and you quote with approval: > [@](#): > > New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie told reporters on Monday it’s “probably against the law” to get opposition research from a foreign country, “in addition to being inappropriate.” > > Christie was asked by reporters about President Donald Trump’s eldest son’s meeting with Russians during the 2016 election. > > “I think there’s a law that says you can’t get anything of value from a foreign government in those situations” he said. “This is why you have the Department of Justice, to be able to do the kind of work and investigation that they typically do and will come to conclusions.” So at best, according to this, he thinks it is “probably,” against the law. He doesn’t mention weighing the law against the protections of the First Amendment, I note, and he does not explain the process for such analysis. Or I might be misreading you, and what you’re endorsing is “This is why you have the Department of Justice. . .” and the idea that he (Christie) is saying that the DoJ will do the requisite analysis. Which, indeed, I hope they would. But I think it’s a relatively easy call. Again, think of prior illustrations I’ve made here in this thread. Imagine that during the Clinton campaign, the opposition researchers discovered that Trump’s DC hotel was hiring undocumented immigrants, non-citizens, and they interviewed several on-camera for a devastating ad about how they are paid below minimum wage, under the table, by Trump’s company. That assistance would have been a “thing of value.” But I cannot bring myself to believe that anyone posting in this thread would have seen that ad and demanded that _Clinton_ be brought to justice for accepting something of value from a non-citizen. The reason is not hypocrisy: it’s the fact that we are very used to the idea that the First Amendment protects that kind of speech: political speech is at the very core, the very essence of the First Amendment. When a law restricts First Amendment activity, it’s generally void, either completely (“overbreadth”) or “as-applied.” Here, any attempt to read “thing of value,” as “political information” runs into that problem. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2017, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/453 "2017-07-18T20:20:02Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > Oh, well, if you say so. Guess Trump has nothing to worry about, then. :rolleyes: He has plenty to worry about. Apart from being hopelessly unqualified for the office he holds and apparently baffled by the legislative process, he faces a heavy political price for the idiocy of the decision. But he doesn’t face criminal liability. (Yet. He may well transform this into a criminal case by lying to investigators, or under oath. Because that’s the special kind of genius he is). ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2017, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/454 "2017-07-18T20:26:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you generally hold Christie’s opinion on the law to be authoritative? > > He says, and you quote with approval: > > So at best, according to this, he thinks it is “probably,” against the law. > > He doesn’t mention weighing the law against the protections of the First Amendment, I note, and he does not explain the process for such analysis. > > Or I might be misreading you, and what you’re endorsing is “This is why you have the Department of Justice. . .” and the idea that he (Christie) is saying that the DoJ will do the requisite analysis. > > Which, indeed, I hope they would. > > But I think it’s a relatively easy call. > > Again, think of prior illustrations I’ve made here in this thread. Imagine that during the Clinton campaign, the opposition researchers discovered that Trump’s DC hotel was hiring undocumented immigrants, non-citizens, and they interviewed several on-camera for a devastating ad about how they are paid below minimum wage, under the table, by Trump’s company. > > That assistance would have been a “thing of value.” But I cannot bring myself to believe that anyone posting in this thread would have seen that ad and demanded that _Clinton_ be brought to justice for accepting something of value from a non-citizen. > > The reason is not hypocrisy: it’s the fact that we are very used to the idea that the First Amendment protects that kind of speech: political speech is at the very core, the very essence of the First Amendment. > > When a law restricts First Amendment activity, it’s generally void, either completely (“overbreadth”) or “as-applied.” Here, any attempt to read “thing of value,” as “political information” runs into that problem. Wouldn’t a closer analogy be that the someone the Clinton campaign believes to represent the Mexican government says, “We really want you to win against Donald Trump. We have some info we can give you from deported Mexican citizens that will crater his campaign. Can we meet?” Would that be a problem? ---
**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 18, 2017, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/455 "2017-07-18T20:39:43Z")
I agree that the meeting between Trump jr. et al and the Russians will not lead to any criminal charges, but I do think it gives Mueller some more space to dig a little deeper. Given that, what would be the strictly legal answer to this hypothetical: Let’s say that one of Trump’s inner circle (Don Jr. or Kushner, say), had ANOTHER meeting with some Russians. We have quite conclusive proof. In this meeting, the Russians say that they have “discovered” some websites that have some very terrible accusations against Ms. Clinton. They propose that they know some people who would be happy to use social media, just for fun, to point segments of the population to these Clinton-hating websites. Trouble is, they just don’t know which segments of the population to target. Basically, they are just fun-loving practical jokers. Also, it becomes known that somehow, somebody was lax in security, and some unknown Russians managed to hack into Republican servers and get ahold of sensitive information about targeted voter groups in areas of the country that were seen as susceptible to flipping from Clinton to Trump. It is determined that these websites did indeed exist, and that social media was indeed used by “anonymous” posters to point people to these websites. The Trump team claims that these meetings were “a big nothing”, and they did not take the Russians up on this offer. And furthermore, their own servers were hacked, and the unnamed person who did not take security seriously has been disciplined. (they have been punished enough, no need to reveal their name) Has a crime been committed? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2017, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/456 "2017-07-18T22:12:45Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Wouldn’t a closer analogy be that the someone the Clinton campaign believes to represent the Mexican government says, “We really want you to win against Donald Trump. We have some info we can give you from deported Mexican citizens that will crater his campaign. Can we meet?” > > Would that be a problem? Likely not a criminal one, because the FEC regulation at issue does not distinguish between a foreign government and a foreign national: > [@11 CFR § 110.20(b)](#): > > Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election. And: > [@](#): > > Foreign national means - > > (i) A foreign principal . . . or > > (ii) An individual who is not a citizen of the United States and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence. . . ---
**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 19, 2017, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/457 "2017-07-19T12:08:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you generally hold Christie’s opinion on the law to be authoritative? > > He says, and you quote with approval: > > So at best, according to this, he thinks it is “probably,” against the law. > > He doesn’t mention weighing the law against the protections of the First Amendment, I note, and he does not explain the process for such analysis. > > Or I might be misreading you, and what you’re endorsing is “This is why you have the Department of Justice. . .” and the idea that he (Christie) is saying that the DoJ will do the requisite analysis. > > Which, indeed, I hope they would. > > But I think it’s a relatively easy call. > > Again, think of prior illustrations I’ve made here in this thread. Imagine that during the Clinton campaign, the opposition researchers discovered that Trump’s DC hotel was hiring undocumented immigrants, non-citizens, and they interviewed several on-camera for a devastating ad about how they are paid below minimum wage, under the table, by Trump’s company. > > That assistance would have been a “thing of value.” But I cannot bring myself to believe that anyone posting in this thread would have seen that ad and demanded that _Clinton_ be brought to justice for accepting something of value from a non-citizen. > > The reason is not hypocrisy: it’s the fact that we are very used to the idea that the First Amendment protects that kind of speech: political speech is at the very core, the very essence of the First Amendment. > > When a law restricts First Amendment activity, it’s generally void, either completely (“overbreadth”) or “as-applied.” Here, any attempt to read “thing of value,” as “political information” runs into that problem. I have a low opinion of Christie, but I think as a former prosecutor he has a better grasp of legal matters than I do. Moreover, as a guy who has spent the better part of the year kissing the Donald Rump, his opinion carries more weight in my view precisely because it goes against his political preferences. I have infinitely more respect for Hillary than I do Christie, but an opinion by Christie against Donnie Jr. is more consequential than Hillary’s because it goes against the political current. Treason is a word bandied about by conservatives regarding everything from Benghazi to the Iran nuclear deal. But when a hostile foreign power expresses interest in helping a particular campaign and says as much in an email to the son of that candidate, then in my opinion his seeking such help is more treasonous than anything they’ve accused Hillary of. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2017, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/458 "2017-07-19T13:56:07Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Treason is a word bandied about by conservatives regarding everything from Benghazi to the Iran nuclear deal. But when a hostile foreign power expresses interest in helping a particular campaign and says as much in an email to the son of that candidate, then in my opinion his seeking such help is more treasonous than anything they’ve accused Hillary of. Is the better word [“espionage”](http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/18/could-trump-jr-kushner-or-manafort-be-charged-under-the-espionage-act/)? \* “Whoever, in aid of any foreign government, knowingly and willfully possesses or controls any property or papers used or designed or intended for use in violating any penal statute, or any of the rights or obligations of the United States under any treaty or the law of nations, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”\* ---
**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 19, 2017, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/459 "2017-07-19T14:00:21Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Is the better word [“espionage”](http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/18/could-trump-jr-kushner-or-manafort-be-charged-under-the-espionage-act/)? > \* > “Whoever, in aid of any foreign government, knowingly and willfully possesses or controls any property or papers used or designed or intended for use in violating any penal statute, or any of the rights or obligations of the United States under any treaty or the law of nations, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”\* Perhaps. I think the difference between committing espionage against the US, compensating others for having done so, and committing treason is just a matter of wordsmithing. ---
**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 19, 2017, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/460 "2017-07-19T14:10:08Z")
Once you guys figure out _le mot juste_ make sure you let the rest of the Democrat collective know. Lol. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001.md?page=24)