# 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:** 24
**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 19, 2017, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/461 "2017-07-19T15:11:50Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Once you guys figure out _le mot juste_ make sure you let the rest of the Democrat collective know. Lol. Once Trump and co stop committing crimes, we’ll stop needing to define them. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2017, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/462 "2017-07-19T15:17:41Z")
If Sr. doesn’t execute Jr. for treason then that just proves that Sr. is just a Republican shill and is actively trying to destroy America. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2017, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/463 "2017-07-19T15:29:01Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > 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. Well, yes. But of course “treason,” was never applicable against Clinton either. It’s an accusation with a great emotional component but zero legal grounding. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2017, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/464 "2017-07-19T15:29:18Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > If Sr. doesn’t execute Jr. for treason then that just proves that Sr. is just a Republican shill and is actively trying to destroy America. You’ve got that backwards - Jr is supposed to execute Sr for treason and take his place as President Supreme. Only thusly will he prove that he is destined to make America great again. Next step will be to dissolve the senate and allow the local governors to keep the locals in line. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2017, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/465 "2017-07-19T15:33:19Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Once Trump and co stop committing crimes, we’ll stop needing to define them. I hope this was just snark. Because the process has to work in reverse: the crimes must be defined first, with specificity. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2017, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/466 "2017-07-19T15:34:39Z")
> [@simster](#): > > You’ve got that backwards - Jr is supposed to execute Sr for treason and take his place as President Supreme. Only thusly will he prove that he is destined to make America great again. Next step will be to dissolve the senate and allow the local governors to keep the locals in line. The last remnants of the Old Republic swept away. Except for those Rebel bases. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2017, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/467 "2017-07-19T15:47:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The last remnants of the Old Republic swept away. > > Except for those Rebel bases. all our bases belong to … ? ---
**Author:** ![Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blue_blistering_barnacle/32/3386_2.png) [@Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blue_Blistering_Barnacle)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2017, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/468 "2017-07-19T15:49:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The last remnants of the Old Republic swept away. > > Except for those Rebel bases. Pesky Rebel bases. Fortunately the newly commissioned “Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity” will keep the local systems in line. ---
**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, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/469 "2017-07-19T16:01:37Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Once Trump and co stop committing crimes, we’ll stop needing to define them. Pretty sure this big old world will trundle along without. I am happy to wait for Mueller to say what terms are appropriate. ---
**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 19, 2017, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/470 "2017-07-19T16:05:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I hope this was just snark. > > Because the process has to work in reverse: the crimes must be defined first, with specificity. It was a bit snarky, but you have the order wrong. Crimes do need to be committed before they can be defined. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2017, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/471 "2017-07-19T17:02:03Z")
> [@simster](#): > > all our bases belong to … ? the guy who’s inside, killin ur doodz. ---
**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 19, 2017, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/472 "2017-07-19T17:13:34Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > It was a bit snarky, but you have the order wrong. > > Crimes do need to be committed before they can be defined. I’m pretty sure he meant: The alleged criminal act must be defined first wrt to which law is operative. ---
**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 19, 2017, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/473 "2017-07-19T17:13:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Likely not a criminal one, because the FEC regulation at issue does not distinguish between a foreign government and a foreign national: > > And: Ah. Thanks for that. ---
**Author:** ![epolo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@epolo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/epolo)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2017, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/474 "2017-07-19T17:28:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. But wouldn’t that (and the other semi hypothetical about the Venezuelan model) fall into the specific exception in the law for foreign nationals volunteering their time? It seems to me that it would have been reasonable to assume going into that meeting that foreign nationals (Russian) intended to provide documentation for the purpose of advancing the campaign. The provision of documents and their bonafides would be the thing of value. If they only provided a volunteer who could speak to some wrongdoing, that seems in the bounds of the law. I get that there is a high constitutional bar to prohibiting anything like political speech. But I’m having trouble understanding what under your analysis would be prohibited as a “thing of value”. BTW, Bricker, thank you once again for your sober legal analysis and patience. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ---
**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 19, 2017, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/475 "2017-07-19T20:48:14Z")
> [@epolo](#): > > BTW, Bricker, thank you once again for your sober legal analysis and patience. > > Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Seconded. Let me ask: if a foreign intelligence service is attempting to recruit me as an asset, do I have a positive obligation to report that attempt to the FBI? Even if I didn’t cooperate with said foreign intelligence service, would I be committing a crime simply by failing to report the contact? If the answer to the above question is “yes”, as I have always assumed it was, then Trump Jr’s only defense is asserting that he didn’t realize that was what was going on, and I am guessing there is an orange jumpsuit in his future. ---
**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 19, 2017, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/476 "2017-07-19T20:59:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Although not necessarily relevant to this particular legal question, a crucial difference is that in your hypothetical, Clinton would have been providing poor and marginalized people with something they wouldn’t otherwise have had: an opportunity to tell their story to a large audience. In contrast, if these mysterious, but obviously wealthy and well connected, Russians really had information damaging to Clinton, and their primary motivation was to make that information public, they could simply have sent it to the New York Times, not to the Trump campaign. Even if it could have been shown that the information was gathered by Russian intelligence and sent to the NYT on Putin’s direct order, I don’t think anyone would argue that the NYT was doing anything wrong in following up on the information and, if it checked out, writing stories about it. The fact that they did, instead, contact the Trump campaign directly and insist on a secret meeting strongly suggests that something more sinister was going on, quite possibly an attempt to entrap Trump et al into committing crimes so that they could be blackmailed in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2017, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/477 "2017-07-19T22:01:02Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > It was a bit snarky, but you have the order wrong. > > Crimes do need to be committed before they can be defined. 😕 No: that would be an Ex Post Facto law. The crime, the criminal act, must be defined first; the law must give specific notice as to what conduct is prohibited. And that definition is always construed strictly against the government, so a poorly defined crime that leaves readers uncertain of what acts are prohibited is constitutionally void, for vagueness. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2017, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/478 "2017-07-19T22:12:55Z")
> [@epolo](#): > > But wouldn’t that (and the other semi hypothetical about the Venezuelan model) fall into the specific exception in the law for foreign nationals volunteering their time? They’re not just volunteering their time. If they go door-to-door or man a phone bank just like other volunteers, sure. But in those hypotheticals they are volunteering information they have: Trump harrassed me; Trump paid me under the table. > [@](#): > > It seems to me that it would have been reasonable to assume going into that meeting that foreign nationals (Russian) intended to provide documentation for the purpose of advancing the campaign. The provision of documents and their bonafides would be the thing of value. If they only provided a volunteer who could speak to some wrongdoing, that seems in the bounds of the law. That’s a jump. Up until now, I’ve discussed the theory that the _information_ itself was a thing of value. You’re now offering a slightly different view: that the Russians were going to provide some physical piece of paper and IT was the “thing of value.” But the analysis is the same: the thing is not valuable in and of itself; its value exists because of the information it contains. > [@](#): > > I get that there is a high constitutional bar to prohibiting anything like political speech. But I’m having trouble understanding what under your analysis would be prohibited as a “thing of value”. The statute’s purpose was to stop monetary contributions from foreign actors, and the “thing of value” is used in dozens of federal statutes to prevent the dodge of “I gave him a block of stocks in Apple, not money,” that would inevitably arise otherwise. It’s true that “thing of value” has been used to cover information in other contexts (I cited a case earlier in which an FBI employee was prosecuted for leaking information about investigations to the Mob). But in the context of political campaign contributions, the statute would prohibit the Russians from donating $1000, or a block of Apple stock, or a gold Rolex, or a Bitcoin (even though a Bitcoin is arguably information). But when the donated information is both valuable AND of political public interest, the First Amendment will trump (ha!) the statute. > [@](#): > > BTW, Bricker, thank you once again for your sober legal analysis and patience. Happy to help! I wish it didn’t get me painted as a Trump supporter. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2017, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/479 "2017-07-19T22:15:00Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > Seconded. > > Let me ask: if a foreign intelligence service is attempting to recruit me as an asset, do I have a positive obligation to report that attempt to the FBI? Even if I didn’t cooperate with said foreign intelligence service, would I be committing a crime simply by failing to report the contact? > > If the answer to the above question is “yes”, as I have always assumed it was, then Trump Jr’s only defense is asserting that he didn’t realize that was what was going on, and I am guessing there is an orange jumpsuit in his future. I’m not aware of any such positive obligation. So far as I can tell, you’re free to disregard the Russkies or the Chinese and go about your day and never say a word to the FBI. Why did you assume such an obligation existed? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2017, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/480 "2017-07-19T22:19:29Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > Although not necessarily relevant to this particular legal question, a crucial difference is that in your hypothetical, Clinton would have been providing poor and marginalized people with something they wouldn’t otherwise have had: an opportunity to tell their story to a large audience. As you point out: not legally relevant. That may be the reason you react approvingly to the hypothetical Clinton conduct, but the law in play doesn’t provide exceptions for when the foreign actor is poor and marginalized. > [@](#): > > The fact that they did, instead, contact the Trump campaign directly and insist on a secret meeting strongly suggests that something more sinister was going on, quite possibly an attempt to entrap Trump et al into committing crimes so that they could be blackmailed in the future. Perhaps. But again, not relevant to the question of a crime committed by Trump Jr at that meeting. It might be they intended to do something else that would be illegal and involve him, and then say, “We own you now.” That’s a well-known technique. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001.md?page=25)