You made me snort my milk.
You’re welcome. 
Oh, there’s no real question that this is sufficient to get a grand jury to return an indictment. The conduct violates the statute. The First Amendment defense is one that would be raised at (or-pre) trial. The fact that the First Amendment is a slam-dunk doesn’t short-circuit the process.
I HOPE that prosecutors would decline to bring charges, and indeed I’m pretty sure there’s DoJ policy forbidding it, but the answer to your question is: the charge could be brought.
Yup. Pentagon Papers.
Suggestion that, if Trump pardons his kinfolk (and possibly himself) to save their sorry asses, the pardon itself could be seen as an obstruction of justice, and possibly be prosecutable.
If Trump Pardons, It Could Be a Crime, Daniel Hemel and Eric Posner, New York Times, July 21, 2017.
The argument being that the Prez can indeed pardon anyone over anything, but if the act of doing so is for corrupt reasons (e.g., obstructing justice), then the act of pardoning may itself be a prosecutable crime.
If there’s anyone who’d sell pardons, it’d be Trumpy.
Hmm…the Seven Dwarves or the Seven Stooges?
Lumpy (Bannon),
Dumpy (Sessions),
Bumpy (Spicer),
Frumpy (Sanders)
Stumpy (Priebus),
Trumpy…
and Clyde (Kushner).
In a New York minute.
Elvish, you forgot the part about being eager to invest in real estate.
Slam-dunk, huh?
Well, you’ll be interested to know that respected law professor Richard Hasen thinks the First Amendment defense is “as bogus as it sounds”. So maybe you have a different definition of “slam-dunk” as I do?
That right there tells you all you need to know about all these ****ing ‘Constitutional experts’ I’ve heard about the last 12 months.
I’m not throwing shade on anyone but i’ll let the Supreme Court sort it out in a couple of years if it gets that far.
Here’s what Volokh actually said: “I don’t think that could be criminalized…that suggests to me that this theory can’t be right”. How that got translated into “the First Amendment defense is a slam-dunk!!!” I have no idea.
Try that’s an opinion piece. The investigation has barely begun. Why would you believe any decisions have been made?
ETA:
Investigation is still ongoing buddy.
Suppose that within the next month, Donald Trump issues blanket pardons to everyone in his administration even remotely tied to the Russia scandal, pardoning them for any crimes they may have committed connected with it (in a manner essentiallythe same as the way Ford pardoned Nixon.) Most, if not all of them, accept the pardons. He then has Robert Mueller promptly fired, on the pretext that since everyone involved is pardoned, there is no point in an investigation.
Will you support this?
No, I’d consider that a mistake. But since I consider the Russian investigation a pure political witch hunt, based on no evidence whatsoever, I would not consider it a crime.
I would hope some enterprising folk would levy state charges of which The Don cannot pardon.
How does this firing get accomplished? What’s the path? The investigation is not only pardoned people. It’s other countries and actors, and it can go on even if everyone is pardoned. That’s why it’s an investigation. The pretext won’t pass muster outside of threads.
The uinacknowledged meetings pile up, the incriminative appearances just keep on growing, the arguments against get more and more outlandish, and you still refuse to accept it.
There is some there there, whether it’s prosecutable or not. But you won’t see it even if people DO get convicted. I can now officially call you the 25%.
Trump issues blanket pardons to Manafort, Trump Jr., Flynn, Sessions, Tillerson, Kushner, and any other person who spoke to any Russians at any time for any purpose on behalf of the Trump campaign. Period. Done. They are pardoned, and that is that.
Trump orders Sessions to fire Mueller. Sessions probably does, given that he has just been given a blanket pardon. If he does not, Trump fires him, and keeps on firing people until he gets to someone who will fire Mueller. Mueller is now fired. The investigation is now over. Republican lawmakers tut-tut and say how this is not appropriate and a terrible, terrible thing. Next day, Republican lawmakers say we must now move on and forget about the whole terrible episode. We must work with Trump to enact his very important goals, and just move along. Nothing more to be done here. Democrat lawmakers fume, but they are in the minority. There is nothing whatsoever they can do.
Trump loyalists say “That was indeed a mistake. But since we consider the Russian investigation a pure political witch hunt, based on no evidence whatsoever, it is not a crime. Time to move on.”