To shamelessly quote myself from a couple weeks ago, this is just following the roadmap:
Nothing happened. This is all made up nonsense.
Maybe something happened, but it wasn’t collusion.
Maybe it was collusion, but it wasn’t illegal.
Maybe it was illegal, but it wasn’t important.
Maybe it was important, but other Presidents have done worse things.
Maybe no other President has done worse things, but at least he hasn’t actually shot someone on Fifth Avenue.
Maybe he did shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, but it wasn’t a baby.
Maybe he did shoot a baby on Fifth Avenue, but that baby had it coming.
Donald Trump Jr. Emails Paint Serious Case of Campaign Finance Violations
(The article has links that aren’t shown in this quote.)
(This is from another FEC regulation, incorporated by reference into the foreign contribution ban.)
In˚ two tweets, Donald Trump Jr. released an email chain that explains the meeting he had with the Russian lawyer to get “dirt” on Hillary Cinton that has been the subject of the investigation. (He released them just as the NYT posted a story on them.)
Looking at the emails, it seems pretty serious. Trump Jr. got an email from his friend stating: “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.”
Trump Jr. replied almost immediately: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”
Hard to see how there is not a serious case here of solicitation. Trump Jr. appears to have knowledge of the foreign source and is asking to see it. As I explained earlier, such information can be considered a “thing of value” for purposes of the campaign finance law. (Update: More on the meaning of “thing of value” here and here.)
It is also possible other laws were broken, such as the laws against coordinating with a foreign entity on an expenditure. There could also be related obstruction, racketeering, or conspiracy charges, but these are really outside my area of specialization and I cannot say.
But there’s a lot for prosecutors to sink their teeth into. Pretty close to the smoking gun people were looking for.
This seems hard to sustain, on first amendment grounds. Obviously foreign nationals don’t have first amendment rights per se, but there are restrictions on in-kind donations for US nationals too. I can see that providing oppo research services pro bono would be providing a thing of value as defined, but giving (or soliciting) a single piece of information? Seems to fly in the face of what the Supreme Court has (unfortunately) held to be protected speech in an electoral context. Doesn’t mean its not illegal on other grounds, of course.
I didn’t think Fox was allowed to show porn that early in the evening. Trump Jr. is certainly a “jobs” creator.
Oh, and President Trump just released a statement on his son.
If you go to the site and click the “here” and “here” links, there’s more information that defines “thing of value.”
I know, I read it. I just don’t think that interpretation would stand up in court. It’s certainly not explicit in the text of the statute, and more importantly, I think the Supreme Court would find that reading of it unconstitutional, as it has with many other restrictions on “speech” during election campaigns. Obviously, I could very well be wrong.
AlanC
3833
Fun photo that popped up on twitter.
Whether there is any legitimate, non Breitbart source to back allegations that Clinton Foundation donors may have exchanged money for political access and/or influence.
Quaro
3836
I can’t help but reply I LOVE IT.
I can’t help but forward the email the person in charge of our campaign.
I can’t help but setup and attend an in person meeting.
I CAN’T HELP IT.
IANAL, so I don’t know either. I’m just looking for people who actually know law and such what their opinions might be (I’ve read some of the statues and not being a lawyer, it’s easy to misconstrue or read things through my own tinted lens.)
In other news, Republicans are All In on trump.
Mind, this is the party that in
2012
2013
2014
2015
Screamed BENGHAZI! as if it was the worst possible scandal in all of US history.
So this comes as no real surprise:
Timex
3838
That first one has Trump sitting right next to the Russian lawyer lady.
RichVR
3839
Or maybe he’s as stupid as, or stupider than, his dad.
Oghier
3840
He grew up knowing he would never have to suffer the consequences of mistakes or bad behavior. I imagine that could eventually get you in trouble.
