OK. My only rejoinder is: no serious national political operative of either party would, in my opinion, act as you suggest. But I cannot gainsay your basic claim that the highest ethical behavior would be as you’re describing.
Your hypothetical does leave out some important details;
- that the information was not to be provided by a victim, but rather by an intermediary
- that the information was provided via a connection with a high level Russian government official (“Crown prosecutor”) (yes, I know that there is no such position - this is presumed to mean “the top federal prosecutor”)
- that the person receiving the information was told in writing that "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for (your candidate).
Let me repeat that last part; they were told that this information “is part of Russia and its government’s support for (your candidate)”.
I think the addition of these relevant details changes your hypothetical from one of “listening to innocent lady victim” to "accepting information from a foreign government who is explicitly helping your candidate. Of course, you are still free to say that no actual crime was committed.
Does Burdick v. US make it actual case law that the acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt?
The material decision in Burdick was that a person receiving a pardon must accept a pardon for it to come to fruition (and to do so must introduce the pardon to court.) The point of the case what that Burdick himself did not want the pardon because the purpose of the pardon was to compel Burdick to testify; the pardon was a tactic to make him abandon his Fifth Amendment rights.
However, people are who is pardoned unconditionally (I guess an executive could insist on such an admission as a condition of a pardon) are not generally required to do or say anything amounting to admitting guilt.
When you don’t care if people think you guilty or innocent, only if you get away with it without penalty, a pardon can be an acceptable choice.
It’s been pointed out more than once that those aren’t important or relevant details legally. Politically yes but they don’t get any mention in the statute under discussion.
Perhaps so… and I realize we are now playing the game of “lawyers in the courtroom”.
And there are good opinions from people who say that Trump Jr. did not commit an act which would reasonably lead to a successful prosecution. I can see that.
However, these details do form an important part of the overall story, which should not be looked at in a strictly legalistic way, using only the rules of the courtroom.
Not sure if you mean “now” as in “recently, in the thread” or “for the entirety of this thread”, but if not the latter, I’ll just point out that the very first line in the OP is:
*Let’s say the feds filed criminal charges against Donald Trump Jr. *
There are lots of other threads where the political implications are being discussed.
Especially if we’re only beginning to learn the full story.
Mueller will do what he needs to do when he’s ready to do it.
As these things go, when more details come out, the storyline will shift to:
-
there is no reasonable expectation that there will be a conviction - this is just political.
-
Conviction? Meh, we must wait for the higher court to rule. There were clear mistakes made by the lower court.
-
It’s all behind us, no use looking at it now. Why do you keep digging up dirt on old cases?
Since you ended your post with “Of course, you are still free to say that no actual crime was committed.” I kind of assumed you were talking legalisticly.
I bet Trump misses James Comey now. Comey could have given a press conference saying, “What Don Jr. did was extremely stupid and he should be flogged with a wet noodle, but there’s no history of prosecuting actions like this” and Don Sr. would take it as total and complete vindication.
I was acknowledging that the legal issues are indeed very important. But even in this thread (started about the legal ability of the president to pardon), we need to look at the whole picture, rather than a simplified version.
Thus, I posited that it may be important to make a hypothetical look as close as possible to reality, by including the fact that the real situation involved explicit knowledge that the Russian government was involved, and supporting a campaign.
You forgot a phrase at the end of that: that you know of before you’ve seen a single result from investigations which are ongoing and have not been published. It’s your absolute certainty that’s incoherent.
That’s pure fantasy. Cite recent quotes that verify that.
Technically, the Burdick language is dicta; the case itself decided only that a person was not required to accept a pardon. But subsequent cases have adopted the dicta about imputation of guilt as controlling many decisions related to expungement, restoration of civil liberties, and the like. The Burdick language has been quoted with approval in many state and federal cases, and I am unable to find any contrary holdings.
Well one way to make your hypothetical extremely close to reality is to not use hypotheticals and just discuss reality. That could really upset the hypothetical industry though.
Feinstein: No Evidence Of Russian Collusion With Trump Campaign, But There Are Rumors
BLITZER: But, I just want to be precise, Senator. In all of the – you have had access from the Intelligence Committee, from the Judiciary Committee, all of the access you have had to very sensitive information, so far you have not seen any evidence of collusion, is that right?
SEN. FEINSTEIN: Well, evidence that would establish that there’s collusion. There are all kinds of rumors around, there are newspaper stories, but that’s not necessarily evidence.
Sen. Manchin (Attended Classified Comey Hearing): No Evidence “Whatsoever” Of Trump-Russia Collusion
STEPHANOPOULOS; Do you agree with this conclusion that the president has reached that there was no evidence of collusion?
MANCHIN: You know, we haven’t seen any of that whatsoever, George. We’ve been looking and showing everything they possibly have. That has not led to that.
Well sure. But I am just cautious when a hypothetical leaves out major details. Like a direct, plainspoken connection with a foreign government. Because this is not just about a campaign meeting with any old person to get dirt on an opponent. We can all agree that happens all the time. The fact that Don Trump Jr. KNEW in advance that this meeting involved a Russian government-connected official, and that the email explicitly said that the Russian government was trying to help Trump’s campaign is very relevant to the discussion in my opinion.
Otherwise, we might as well say “political campaigns collect information about their opponents all the time, no big deal move on” And that would be true, without the Russian connections. So to remove the Russian connections from the hypothetical would remove the most important context. That’s my point.
So let’s extend that. Are you now contending that Russian attempts to interfere in the election are protected free speech?
I think he’s saying that making it illegal to chat with a foreigner, regardless of subject (excluding classified information), would not pass a First Amendment test.
It depends on what “interfere” means.
If “interfere” means accessing a voting machine and changing the totals, then: no.
If “interfere” means a Russian citizen visiting the United States on a tourist visa who says to everyone she meets, “Vote Smith, and not Jones!” then: yes.
What, specifically, does “interfere” mean when you used the word?