# 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:** 5
**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 12, 2017, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/81 "2017-07-12T12:26:12Z")
> [@simster](#): > > well, I said ‘from personal knowledge’ - anyone that has gone thru the process would be able to speak to it - I don’t know that specifics of the questionare are public, and every case is likely to have some variation - [Security Clearances - United States Department of State](https://www.state.gov/m/ds/clearances/c10978.htm) You can download the form itself and also read it from that link. ---
**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 12, 2017, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/82 "2017-07-12T12:30:04Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Would you perhaps show a precedent under this provision where it was held that information came under the “thing of value”. > > And remembering that criminal statutes are always to be given the construction which is most favourable to the Accused. Serious question, somewhat a hijack: if I hack into your email and copy everything in it, I’m obviously breaking laws relating to unauthorized access and whatnot. But have I committed theft by taking emails? ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/83 "2017-07-12T12:39:27Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Was the Bush debate prep manual something of value to the Gore campaign? Sure it was, which is why it was turned over unread to the FBI and the staffer who found it recused himself from the debate prep. This is what law-abiding campaigns do. If your defense is “well, there’s no precedent for the exact thing my team did”, I’m sure the prosecutor will rip that to shreds in seconds. If you mean “rip the complaint to shreds”, then yes you are right. Let’s see some damn precedents::rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/84 "2017-07-12T12:43:39Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Serious question, somewhat a hijack: if I hack into your email and copy everything in it, I’m obviously breaking laws relating to unauthorized access and whatnot. But have I committed theft by taking emails? Theft statutes usually require a accused to have taken (or misappropriated) property belonging to another, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it. I would guess not, and practically with the fact there is another statute which covers it means 1. No one will bother trying 2. Courts will be reluctant to construe it as such. ---
**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 12, 2017, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/85 "2017-07-12T12:44:27Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > If you mean “rip the complaint to shreds”, then yes you are right. > > Let’s see some damn precedents::rolleyes: So nothing can ever happen without precedent? Must have worked out well for Cain. Unless Fredo gets pardoned, this will be prosecuted and he will be convicted for, precedent or no. ---
**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 12, 2017, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/86 "2017-07-12T12:44:31Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If you don’t mind, can we see a cite for that? [quote] Have you or any member of your immediate family in the past seven (7) years had any contact with a foreign government, its establishment (such as embassy, consulate, agency, military service, intelligence or security service, etc.) **or its representatives,** whether inside or outside the U.S.? (Answer ‘No’ if the contact was for routine visa applications and border crossings related to either official U.S. Government travel or foreign travel on a U.S. passport.) [quote] By a plain reading of the question, this Russian lawyer was presented to Don Jr. as a representative of the Russian Government. In this case, Jared Kushner would be obligated to report the meeting on his application, as both he and his brother in law met with this lawyer. One could quibble with the question of whether the lawyer was actually a representative of the Russian government in some capacity, but if this were anyone else but the President’s family involved, not disclosing this meeting would be a serious matter. If the investigators and clearance adjudicators had any reason to believe that the meeting was not disclosed because of anything but an innocent oversight, the odds of a clearance being granted would lower rapidly. In fact, in my opinion, given the subject of the meeting, I think anyone but the President’s family would have a serious problem getting a security clearance because of the subject of the meeting. ---
**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 12, 2017, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/87 "2017-07-12T13:24:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If you don’t mind, can we see a cite for that? Under Section 19 in the form itself - bolded the cite for you. > [@](#): > > Complete the following if you responded ‘Yes’ to have, or have had, close and/or continuing contact with a foreign national. > > Section 19 - Foreign Contacts > > Do you have, or have you had, close and/or continuing contact with a foreign national within the last seven (7) years with whom you, or your spouse, or cohabitant are bound by affection, influence, common interests, and/or obligation? Include associates as well as relatives, not previously listed in Section 18. > > **A foreign national is defined as any person who is not a citizen or national of the U.S.** ---
**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 12, 2017, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/88 "2017-07-12T13:51:21Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > By a plain reading of the question, this Russian lawyer was presented to Don Jr. as a representative of the Russian Government. In this case, Jared Kushner would be obligated to report the meeting on his application, as both he and his brother in law met with this lawyer. > > One could quibble with the question of whether the lawyer was actually a representative of the Russian government in some capacity, but if this were anyone else but the President’s family involved, not disclosing this meeting would be a serious matter. If the investigators and clearance adjudicators had any reason to believe that the meeting was not disclosed because of anything but an innocent oversight, the odds of a clearance being granted would lower rapidly. In fact, in my opinion, given the subject of the meeting, I think anyone but the President’s family would have a serious problem getting a security clearance because of the subject of the meeting. With what we’re seeing in the e-mails, it does seem like that should have been the case for him. I hadn’t seen the emails when I made that post. > [@simster](#): > > Under Section 19 in the form itself - bolded the cite for you. OK. But just to be clear, you had said “contact” – e.g., having one meeting with someone. Had the lawyer in question not had some ties to the government, and had just been a “foreign national”, DT Jr would not have had to disclose the one meeting. Right? The cite you gave spoke of there being some kind of ongoing relationship. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/89 "2017-07-12T13:52:45Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Go on. Lay out your case. Which provision of the statute was violated by which specific actions by DT Jr. Please note (from your owns cite) that much of that act has been overturned by the SCOTUS since 1941. > > And for future reference, I won’t be responding to posts that consist of “here’s a law, go prove that DT Jr didn’t violate it”. Tell us specifically which provision of the statute was violated and which specific actions DT Jr took that violate that law. And be sure it is about “the meeting itself”, not something done outside the meeting. Well, according to [this guy](http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93740), who’s a Law Professor at UC Irvine, Trump Jr violated 1 CFR 110.20 - Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510), which makes it illegal for a person to solicit a contribution to a campaign from a foreign individual or entity. ---
**Author:** ![Gus\_Gusterson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85f322/32.png) [@Gus\_Gusterson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gus_Gusterson)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/90 "2017-07-12T14:01:14Z")
If you’ve gotten a security clearance or know someone who has and who lists you as a reference, you know that they take the “contact with a foreign national” stuff seriously. My wife is from Ireland and our friends who have clearances have made sure to get assurances that she is a US citizen (she’s a citizen by birth, which makes it easy). The friends have noted on their clearance applications that they have met my wife’s mother, who is an Irish citizen (her father is a naturalized US citizen). I have been interviewed as a reference and the interviewers ask many questions about the friends’ contacts with foreign nationals. When I mention that they’ve met my wife’s mother it leads to several minutes of questioning about her and their contact with her. This is for an old Irish lady. I’d think they’d care 100 times more about contact with a Russian who you’re taking meetings with. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/91 "2017-07-12T14:14:37Z")
When I got my long since lapsed secret clearance in the early 90s they were definitely interested in foreign contacts. They wanted to know about _any_ foreign contacts, not just government representatives. Of course that was then. I dread to think what the process must be like these days with the internet and possible multiple online aliases and having no idea of the real nationality of many online contacts. ---
**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 12, 2017, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/92 "2017-07-12T14:24:23Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Well, according to [this guy](http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93740), who’s a Law Professor at UC Irvine, Trump Jr violated 1 CFR 110.20 - Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510), which makes it illegal for a person to solicit a contribution to a campaign from a foreign individual or entity. I’ll let **Bricker** weigh in on that, but note that he is laying his case on there being “a thing of value”. The emails don’t show that DT Jr knew what the “dirt” was, so without knowing that, how could it be determined that there was a “thing of value” involved? His cite on a “thing of value” is not the same as the situation we are in at the moment-- it’s about specific poll data that could be assigned a dollar value. You have to click back to his earlier discussion about that to see 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 12, 2017, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/93 "2017-07-12T14:29:19Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’ll let **Bricker** weigh in on that, but note that he is laying his case on there being “a thing of value”. The emails don’t show that DT Jr knew what the “dirt” was, so without knowing that, how could it be determined that there was a “thing of value” involved? His cite on a “thing of value” is not the same as the situation we are in at the moment-- it’s about specific poll data that could be assigned a dollar value. You have to click back to his earlier discussion about that to see it. I don’t think the “thing of value” is much of a challenge. DJTJ’s email says something like “if it is what you say it is, I love it.” So he clearly values it. And, for solicitation, it doesn’t matter if it came to fruition. The far bigger challenge is the First Amendment problem with criminalizing the sharing of information. If the information was illegally obtained, there might be an argument, but it’s hard to see how that plays out in the context of an inchoate crime that was merely attempted but never occurred. ---
**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 12, 2017, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/94 "2017-07-12T14:30:32Z")
> [@Gus\_Gusterson](#): > > If you’ve gotten a security clearance or know someone who has and who lists you as a reference, you know that they take the “contact with a foreign national” stuff seriously. My wife is from Ireland and our friends who have clearances have made sure to get assurances that she is a US citizen (she’s a citizen by birth, which makes it easy). The friends have noted on their clearance applications that they have met my wife’s mother, who is an Irish citizen (her father is a naturalized US citizen). I have been interviewed as a reference and the interviewers ask many questions about the friends’ contacts with foreign nationals. When I mention that they’ve met my wife’s mother it leads to several minutes of questioning about her and their contact with her. This is for an old Irish lady. I’d think they’d care 100 times more about contact with a Russian who you’re taking meetings with. I think that, in an interview, it’s not unreasonable they ask some questions if you bring someone up, since they would want to determine the extent of the relationship you had with the person. If you had one meeting with a person who was a foreign national, it doesn’t appear that it would be a requirement to put that person’s name on the form. It might be wise to do so, just in case, but it doesn’t appear that it would be required. Your wife’s mother might have been someone that they had a personal or ongoing relationship with since they had such a relationship with your wife. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/95 "2017-07-12T14:34:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’ll let **Bricker** weigh in on that, but note that he is laying his case on there being “a thing of value”. The emails don’t show that DT Jr knew what the “dirt” was, so without knowing that, how could it be determined that there was a “thing of value” involved? His cite on a “thing of value” is not the same as the situation we are in at the moment-- it’s about specific poll data that could be assigned a dollar value. You have to click back to his earlier discussion about that to see it. His point is that “information” can potentially have value. Another of his cites says (in regards to accepting certain unused advertising materials): Although the value of these materials may be nominal or difficult to ascertain, they have some value. The provision of these items without charge would relieve your campaign of the expense that it would otherwise incur to obtain such materials. Thus, the provision of such items without charge would constitute a contribution and, as such, would be prohibited, particularly in light of the broad scope of the prohibition on contributions from foreign nationals. I would think that the information offered by the Russian had value, given that campaigns pay for opposition research, and also given how eager Trump Jr was to receive it. Still, it’s a reasonable counterargument, and one that other law experts are making. I suspect we won’t know for sure unless it actually goes to trial. ---
**Author:** ![Gus\_Gusterson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85f322/32.png) [@Gus\_Gusterson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gus_Gusterson)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/96 "2017-07-12T14:35:34Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think that, in an interview, it’s not unreasonable they ask some questions if you bring someone up, since they would want to determine the extent of the relationship you had with the person. If you had one meeting with a person who was a foreign national, it doesn’t appear that it would be a requirement to put that person’s name on the form. It might be wise to do so, just in case, but it doesn’t appear that it would be required. Your wife’s mother might have been someone that they had a personal or ongoing relationship with since they had such a relationship with your wife. My wife’s mother lives in Ireland. These friends have had short conversations, consisting of little more than niceties, with her the few times they have met her while she was visiting us in the US. They knew that that almost-incidental contact was worthy of reporting. The interviewers didn’t immediately dismiss it when it was brought up. Rather, they asked several questions about it. I think if I had said “Bill met with a Russian lawyer once” and he hadn’t noted it on the application that they would be very interested. ---
**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 12, 2017, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/97 "2017-07-12T14:38:17Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Current stance: “NOT ILLEGAL! NOT ILLEGAL” > > Future stance: “This is a witch hunt. Donald Trump Jr. is hereby pardoned for any act he may be accused of by the evil media and the horrible investigators” > Apologists: "See! We told you he was innocent! This proves it! Looks like Trump Sr. has already graduated to part 1 of the “Future stance”: “This is the greatest Witch Hunt in political history. Sad!” Can the official pardon be far away? I say it comes before much more investigation can take place. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/98 "2017-07-12T14:47:24Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Under Section 19 in the form itself - bolded the cite for you. I don’t think I would view a single quasi-business meeting with a foreign national as “close and/or continuing contact” with someone “are bound by affection, influence, common interests, and/or obligation.” I certainly wouldn’t fault someone for failing to disclose such a meeting in response to that question. The more relevant question (as Ravenman notes) is in Section 20B regarding contact with representatives of a foreign government. Whether or not this lawyer was actually a government representative, it seems clear that Donald Jr. thought she was at least when the meeting was set up. (I don’t know if you later discover that someone is not a government representative whether you need to disclose the meeting; but I’d certainly list it). > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I don’t think the “thing of value” is much of a challenge. DJTJ’s email says something like “if it is what you say it is, I love it.” So he clearly values it. And, for solicitation, it doesn’t matter if it came to fruition. Is agreeing to take a meeting “solicitation”? It’s defined elsewhere (as one of the links shows) as “to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution” etc. Rick Hasen seems to think it’s pretty clearly “solicitation” but I don’t know. I can see how it would be agreeing to accept a contribution, but soliciting? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/99 "2017-07-12T14:49:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Can the official pardon be far away? I say it comes before much more investigation can take place. I say it comes shortly after the explanation of how “technically not illegal” overlaps with “illegal”. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 12, 2017, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/100 "2017-07-12T14:52:38Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > Is agreeing to take a meeting “solicitation”? It’s defined elsewhere (as one of the links shows) as “to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution” etc. Rick Hasen seems to think it’s pretty clearly “solicitation” but I don’t know. I can see how it would be agreeing to accept a contribution, but soliciting? I share your skepticism, but I’m also mindful about how powerful prosecutors are in our country. I wouldn’t be shocked to learn that they have secured some precedent defining solicitation to be quite broad. It would be ironic indeed if DJTJ is caught up in some overbroad solicitation precedent crafted as a result of the drug war. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001.md?page=6)