Could and would Trump Sr. pardon Trump Jr.

Politics & Elections
61

So you really are falling back on:

Sure the Russians actually WERE trying to help Trump’s campaign, and yes, senior players in the Trump campaign WERE aware of this, and yes, they DID try to work with a foreign power to get information to use in the campaign, and NO, they did NOT tell anyone about this until very recently, when the media got ahold of it…

BUT

It was technically not illegal, because Trump Jr. was not someone with official government security clearance.
That’s what you’re going with today?

62

As a father of sons, pardoning his son and taking the bullets would be the first thing that Trump did that I would respect him for. If he throws his son under the bus rather than insisting that his son throw him under the bus he is exactly who I think he is.

63

Why do you think that pardoning Jr. would be detrimental to Sr.? I would think that if Trump Sr. pardons his son, that would be entirely an ass-covering move, especially if he does it before any testifying takes place.

64

Same reason firing Comey was detrimental. It looks guilty as hell.

65

WALL OF TEXT ALERT

For the sake of completeness, I’m reposting the text of the statute I cited before, followed by the three specific instances of violations that jumped out at me:

[QUOTE=18 USC § 1001]
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
[/QUOTE]

(Note: Junior’s statements from Saturday and Sunday are from Donald Trump Jr. provided 2 wildly different statements to describe his meeting with a Russian lawyer.

The email chain is from Read the Emails on Donald Trump Jr.’s Russia Meeting.

Other ancillary information, noted below, is from Russian Dirt on Clinton? ‘I Love It,’ Donald Trump Jr. Said.)

  1. He concealed the true intent of the meeting. From his Saturday statement:

[QUOTE=Donald J. Trump, Jr.]
“It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at that time and there was no follow up.”
[/QUOTE]

The first email in today’s published chain:

[QUOTE=Rob Goldstone]
On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote:
Good morning
Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.
What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.
Best
Rob Goldstone
[/QUOTE]

And Junior’s first response:

[QUOTE=Donald J. Trump, Jr.]
On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:53, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:
Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?
Best,
Don
[/QUOTE]

He knew six days before the meeting its purported reason, and it wasn’t about adoptions…at least from his side.
2. He lied (misrepresented, falsified) when he said Kushner and Manafort knew nothing about the substance of the meeting.

From his Sunday statement:

[QUOTE=Donald J. Trump, Jr.]
“I was asked to have a meeting by an acquaintance I knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant with an individual who I was told might have information helpful to the campaign. I was not told her name prior to the meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to attend, but told them nothing of the substance.”
[/QUOTE]

According to the NYT story (the third link listed above):

[QUOTE=The New York Times]
“After being informed that the Russian lawyer could not make the 3 p.m. time that had been proposed, and agreeing to move it by an hour, Donald Trump Jr. forwarded the entire email chain to Mr. Kushner’s company work email, and to Mr. Manafort at his Trump campaign email.”
[/QUOTE]

That was the day before the meeting. And, since Kushner and Manafort were both at the meeting, there’s little option but to infer that they read it.
3. He misrepresented (twice) that he had had a sense of who Veselnitskaya was, stating only that he wasn’t told her name.

From his Saturday statement:

[QUOTE=Donald J. Trump, Jr.]
“I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand.”
[/QUOTE]

…and from his Sunday statement:

[QUOTE=Donald J. Trump, Jr.]
“I was asked to have a meeting by an acquaintance I knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant with an individual who I was told might have information helpful to the campaign. I was not told her name prior to the meeting.”
[/QUOTE]

Those were the only references he made to Veselnitskaya in those two statements. But, from the email chain:

[QUOTE=Rob Goldstone]
On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:20 PM, Rob Goldstone wrote:
Don
Hope all is well
Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday.
I believe you are aware of the meeting - and so wondered if 3pm or later on Thursday works for you?
I assume it would be at your office.
Best
Rob Goldstone
[/QUOTE]

And then, two days before the meeting:

[QUOTE=Rob Goldstone]
On Jun 7, 2016, at 5:19 PM, Rob Goldstone wrote:
Perfect won’t sit in on the meeting, but will bring them at 3pm and introduce you etc.
I will send the names of the two people meeting with you for security when I have them later today.
best
Rob
[/QUOTE]

Goldstone was going to notify security that she and her interpreter were coming. This should be verifiable through subpoena, if necessary.
I’m sure that isn’t all of the possible choices, but this is beginning to reach novella length. I don’t expect any but the most interested parties to read through the entire thing, but it’s here anyway.

/WALL OF TEXT ALERT :slight_smile:

66

You are still missing a description of how Jr in 2016 counts as a member of the government to which the law is applicable. That leading bullet is really important for an indictment let alone a conviction.

67

Johnny Ace:

Just so I understand what your theory of the law is…

…if I meet with Maria Rivera, a lawyer for the Cuban government, and she tells me she has some dirt on Bernie Sanders, and then later I post a public statement on the matter, denying I ever met with her. . . in your opinion do those facts amount to my violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 ?

68

Sure the Russians actually WERE trying to help Trump’s campaign, and yes, senior players in the Trump campaign WERE aware of this, and yes, they DID try to work with a foreign power to get information to use in the campaign, and NO, they did NOT tell anyone about this until very recently, when the media got ahold of it…

BUT

It was technically not illegal.

To be followed by: There is little likelihood of conviction.
To be followed by: We must wait for the final court of appeal decision.
To be followed by: Well, he has been pardoned, so we must put that behind us now.

69

If you don’t mind, can we see a cite for that?

70

Remember, you were claiming that the meeting itself was illegal. This does nothing to prove that.

But let’s leave that aside for a minute. When the law you cited mentioned lying or making misleading statements, do you actually think it means doing so in a tweet or to a journalist asking the person a question? That is, you don’t think the issue of breaking the law refers to making such statements to the government agents during questioning as part of an official investigation? Because that would be nothing short of extraordinary, not to mention a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

71

Obviously Johnny Ace has some grave misconceptions about 18 U.S.C. § 1001, so I hesitated before offering the following addendum to what you wrote, fearing I’d increase confusion instead of quell it.

Your view is generally correct, but in what is hopefully the true SDMB spirit, the law does stretch a bit farther than the statements offered to investigators as part of an official investigation.

In the mid-1950s, a case called US v. Bramblett held that “department or agency” as used in § 1001 included official legislative inquiries and official judicial inquires. This was the rule for forty years; SCOTUS then overruled Bramblett with Hubbard v. US. The effect of this decision was to criminalize only false statements made to executive branch entities. Congress amended § 1001 shortly thereafter to effectively return the law to its pre-Hubbard state.

Bottom line is: the law does reach statements made to non-investigative, and even non-federal actors when the statement involves a federal program. In one case, affidavits requested by a state agency were held to violate § 1001 because the state agency was executing a federally-paid contract and the affiants were aware of this.

Cites on request.

Again I emphasize that this is a narrow nitpicky correction of John Mace’s words, and also a broad and complete rejection of Johnny Ace’s legal theorizing.

72

Isn’t a campaign agreeing to accept something of value from a foreign government a crime? Especially if it’s a hostile government?

73

Dude, don’t you ever tire of trying to explain?:wink: It takes years of law schoo and practicel to become proficient for a reason.

74

That’s a good question.

I don’t think that my explanations will create proficiency.

But I hope some good will ensue from them anyway: I hope that readers will begin to realize that there’s some complexity afoot, and be more cautious about these confident declarations. What I picture happening without an explanation is folks like Johnny walk away convinced that the law was actually broken, and the lack of a subsequent prosecution just shows the entrenched corruption in the system, or some such. He is, in other words, genuinely baffled at what seems to him a straightforward issue.

So by presenting a basic hypothetical, then, I hope to get him to think for a moment about the implications of what he’s saying. “Wait a sec,” is the thought I hope to trigger. “That can’t be right.”

If I just posted the contradictory case law, he’d likely ignore it as too complicated. But if I can start by making HIM realize that some other, additional standard must somehow be in play, maybe he’ll ask why the law doesn’t apply. And then he’ll be receptive to the basic proposition that in order to understand the statute, you need to know the case law that has construed that statute.

75

Which will always remain a bad idea, and continue to make Bricker look like he’s playing gotcha games instead of just putting the information directly out there.

Bricker is not some vaunted teacher, but just another one of us. We’re not going to ask “why would that be” because Bricker is not some all-knowing teacher whom we must beg for knowledge.

He’s been doing it for years, and it rarely works, but Bricker won’t stop. He’ll just put you on ignore when you try to get across how much his arguing style pisses everyone off.

76

Seriously, that’s the hill you want to die on defending? There are people who make their livings doing opposition research. Campaigns spend quite a bit of money on opposition research. You’re seriously taking the position that opposition research is not a thing of value? 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.

77

First, try speaking to me instead of third-person. 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? Really, who do you think you are? More to the point, who do you think I am?

My profoundest apologies if I went off half-cocked and was wrong…those that have read me should get some idea that it doesn’t happen often. I have never professed to be an attorney at law…but you can save your self-congratulation and ego gratification for someone less able and armed to defend himself.

78

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.

79

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.

80

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 - https://www.state.gov/m/ds/clearances/c10978.htm