# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/101 "2017-07-12T14:55:31Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Seriously, that’s the hill you want to die on defending? Seriously, it is ridiculous to claim that it’s a “thing of value” for the purposes of that law. If it is, please cite a precedent. > [@](#): > > Even if the opponent did “criminal deeds” (which nobody has demonstrated that Hillary has done) it would still not be kosher to accept this information from a hostile foreign power. Cite a precedent. ---
**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, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/102 "2017-07-12T14:56:18Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > 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). That’s the thing. You list everyone and everything because failing to list them is worse. One of my friends and his wife, who both have clearances, are into swinging (having sex with people outside of their marriage). They list that on their applications because they don’t want anyone to be able to use it against them. “Dave cheats on his wife”. “We know - he told us. What else you got?” Again, you list everything and let the people who handle your application sort it out. Withholding anything is as good as lying about it. ---
**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, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/103 "2017-07-12T14:59:59Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Seriously, it is ridiculous to claim that it’s a “thing of value” for the purposes of that law. > > If it is, please cite a precedent. > > Cite a precedent. I can’t be bothered to dig through your old posts, so I’ll just ask: how did you feel about the “there’s no precedent” argument when it was applied to Hillary? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/104 "2017-07-12T15:12:58Z")
> [@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. Can you and others explain why anything to do with security clearance is relevant to the case of Donald Trump Jr. who has none? ---
**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, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/105 "2017-07-12T15:14:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I say it comes shortly after the explanation of how “technically not illegal” overlaps with “illegal”. > > Regards, > Shodan Ho Ho! Very droll my good man! Are you proud that you are defending the president’s son, who met with a Russian lawyer during the election in order to gain information from the Russian government to help his campaign? And it’s all just fine because in your opinion, “Not Illegal”. Just hunky dory. No problem if foreign governments obtain information however they can (I’m sure they will always obtain the information in ethical ways), and share it with whatever campaign they want in order to influence presidential elections, right? That’s the way things should be? No problem with that going forward into future elections? There is a line between “Right” and “Wrong”. ---
**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, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/106 "2017-07-12T15:15:16Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Can you and others explain why anything to do with security clearance is relevant to the case of Donald Trump Jr. who has none? How do you feel about Kushner, who does have a security clearance? ---
**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, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/107 "2017-07-12T15:24:50Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Seriously, it is ridiculous to claim that it’s a “thing of value” for the purposes of that law. > > If it is, please cite a precedent. > > Cite a precedent. Was Cain justified in killing Abel? There was no precedent. Do you really think a judge would say “Gee, this hasn’t happened before. Olly olly oxen free!” If opposition intel is not a thing of value, why do campaigns pay so much money gathering it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/108 "2017-07-12T15:28:13Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > First, try speaking to me instead of third-person. Post 67. > [@](#): > > Second, are you seriously trying to intimate that I can’t understand complexity, and/or that I don’t have the attention span to read? Errr… post 67. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/109 "2017-07-12T15:31:12Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > If opposition intel is not a thing of value, why do campaigns pay so much money gathering it? “Opposition intel” is. Information about criminal misdeeds of your opponent isn’t. Let’s do a thought experiment to demonstrate. Let’s say someone (US citizen) contributed the max to a candidate ($2700). Then that someone finds out that the opponent of the candidate committed a crime. With proof. He comes to the candidate’s campaign and offers the proof. The campaign checks and sees that the person has already contributed the maximum to the campaign. So - are they obligated to reject his “contribution”? ---
**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, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/110 "2017-07-12T15:32:20Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > How do you feel about Kushner, who does have a security clearance? Is there any evidence that Kushner did not reveal it? I have ever gotten an American security clearance, but in other places, the forms you fill out are also classified or at least restricted. ---
**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, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/111 "2017-07-12T15:38:19Z")
> [@Gus\_Gusterson](#): > > That’s the thing. You list everyone and everything because failing to list them is worse. One of my friends and his wife, who both have clearances, are into swinging (having sex with people outside of their marriage). They list that on their applications because they don’t want anyone to be able to use it against them. “Dave cheats on his wife”. “We know - he told us. What else you got?” > > Again, you list everything and let the people who handle your application sort it out. Withholding anything is as good as lying about it. Well… not really. As I said earlier, it’s probably wise to over-communicate your contacts. But it’s not a crime to simply to be unwise. When you start getting into “anything” you enter the realm of: I said excuse me to a guy with an accent that I bumped into on the subway this morning. ---
**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, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/112 "2017-07-12T15:39:52Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Is there any evidence that Kushner did not reveal it? I have ever gotten an American security clearance, but in other places, the forms you fill out are also classified or at least restricted. His personal attorney has confirmed on the record that his sf-86 did not list any foreign contacts. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/113 "2017-07-12T15:40:16Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Seriously, it is ridiculous to claim that it’s a “thing of value” for the purposes of that law. > > If it is, please cite a precedent. > > Cite a precedent. I can’t find any case that specifies opposition intel on a candidate is a “thing of value,” but in statutes, words have their ordinary meaning. I don’t believe any court would be overturned on appeal for finding that this information was a “thing of value,” within the meaning of the law. People pay large sums of money for detailed opposition research. As the Second Circuit explained: > [@](#): > > [W]e are impressed by Congress’ repeated use of the phrase “thing of value” in section 641 and its predecessors. These words are found in so many criminal statutes throughout the United States that they have in a sense become words of art. **The word “thing” notwithstanding, the phrase is generally construed to cover intangibles as well as tangibles.** For example, amusement is held to be a thing of value under gambling statutes. . . Sexual intercourse, or the promise of sexual intercourse, is a thing of value under a bribery statute. . . . So also are a promise to reinstate an employee, . . . and an agreement not to run in a primary election. . . The testimony of a witness is a thing of value under 18 U.S.C. § 876, which prohibits threats made through the mails with the intent to extort money or any other “thing of value.” My emphasis added, quoting _US v. Girard_, 601 F. 2d 69 (2nd Cir 1979) with all internal citations omitted. (But available on request). ---
**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, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/114 "2017-07-12T15:40:37Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > “Opposition intel” is. Information about criminal misdeeds of your opponent isn’t. > > Let’s do a thought experiment to demonstrate. Let’s say someone (US citizen) contributed the max to a candidate ($2700). Then that someone finds out that the opponent of the candidate committed a crime. With proof. He comes to the candidate’s campaign and offers the proof. > > The campaign checks and sees that the person has already contributed the maximum to the campaign. So - are they obligated to reject his “contribution”? You set up a false dilemma. If you are aware of someone committing a crime, you are obligated to report it to the appropriate legal authorities, not an opposing candidate’s campaign office. So which criminal activities did the Ruskies have knowledge of, exactly? Was it something…something…something… EMAILS! Or was it “Hillary lied, people died- BENGHAZI!”? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/115 "2017-07-12T15:43:17Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Is there any evidence that Kushner did not reveal it? I have ever gotten an American security clearance, but in other places, the forms you fill out are also classified or at least restricted. His lawyer’s statement (bolding mine) "As we have previously stated, Mr. Kushner’s SF-86 was prematurely submitted and, among other errors, did not list any contacts with foreign government officials. **The next day** , Mr. Kushner submitted supplemental information stating that he had had ‘numerous contacts with foreign officials’ about which he would be happy to provide additional information. He has since submitted this information, including that during the campaign and transition, he had over 100 calls or meetings with representatives of more than 20 countries, most of which were during transition, … Mr. Kushner has submitted additional updates and included, out of an abundance of caution, this meeting with a Russian person, which he briefly attended at the request of his brother-in-law, Donald Trump Jr.". ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/116 "2017-07-12T15:44:59Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > You set up a false dilemma. If you are aware of someone committing a crime, you are obligated to report it to the appropriate legal authorities, not an opposing candidate’s campaign office. You’re fighting the hypothetical. Try to answer it as asked. It is not a “false dilemma”. It is a hypothetical situation. Should the campaign reject this information because it is, according to you, an illegal campaign contribution? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/117 "2017-07-12T15:46:05Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > His personal attorney has confirmed on the record that his sf-86 did not list any foreign contacts. … and that the next day after submitting it he “submitted supplemental information stating that he had had ‘numerous contacts with foreign officials’ about which he would be happy to provide additional information.” ---
**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, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/118 "2017-07-12T15:47:12Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. > 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. ‘contact’ being - saying hi as you pass them on the street or pleasantries in a meeting with a large group of people is much different then ‘contact’ with a named individual int he form of a meeting with said individual. They clearly shared common interests, goals. In the end - the cite was to reference that it was ‘any foreign national’ - not just those that had specific affiliations - you can split hairs all day long on what it means by ‘meaningful contact’ or if it were to be ‘ongoing’ - if it were my form/interview - you can guaruntee that would be considered a ‘meaningful’ contact and I am so far down the food chain that its unlikely I would be sought out by foriegn ‘interests’ - which is what they are trying to determine here. Keep in mind that @ Trumps level - simply exchaning pleasantries in a bar can be ‘first contact’ by the foriegn asset - so you have to pay even MORE attention to them. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/119 "2017-07-12T15:47:14Z")
Well that settles it. Kushner’s lawyer says there’s nothing to see here. We can be assured that he has no agenda in this matter. Guess we can close the thread then? :rolleyes: ---
**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, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001/120 "2017-07-12T15:49:38Z")
> [@Gus\_Gusterson](#): > > That’s the thing. You list everyone and everything because failing to list them is worse. One of my friends and his wife, who both have clearances, are into swinging (having sex with people outside of their marriage). They list that on their applications because they don’t want anyone to be able to use it against them. “Dave cheats on his wife”. “We know - he told us. What else you got?” > > Again, you list everything and let the people who handle your application sort it out. Withholding anything is as good as lying about it. What he said - [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-and-would-trump-sr-pardon-trump-jr/791001.md?page=7)