clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Legal experts say Donald Trump Jr has just confessed to a federal crime

Zack Beauchamp is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he covers ideology and challenges to democracy, both at home and abroad. Before coming to Vox in 2014, he edited TP Ideas, a section of Think Progress devoted to the ideas shaping our political world.

Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 with the express purpose of getting information the Russian government had supposedly acquired on Hillary Clinton, according to a New York Times report published on Monday night.

Trump Jr. then confirmed the story on Tuesday on Twitter by releasing the actual emails between him and British publicist Rob Goldstone setting up the meeting — emails that proved without a shadow of a doubt that the Trump Jr. was told beforehand that the information he would be getting came from the Russian government.

“This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” Goldstone wrote to Trump Jr. “ “If it’s what you say I love it,” he replied.

Trump Jr. had already admitted in a statement that he took the meeting with the Russian attorney, a woman named Natalia Veselnitskaya, to get useful information on Hillary Clinton. His defense of his actions was that the meeting didn’t bear fruit: that “it quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.” In other words, there’s no way this constituted meaningful collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia because Veselnitskaya didn’t provide him with anything useful.

But experts on national security and election law say this “defense” is, legally speaking, no defense at all.

“The emails are simply put damning as a legal matter,” explains Ryan Goodman, a former Defense Department special counsel and current editor of the legal site Just Security. “The text of the emails provide very clear evidence of participation in a scheme to involve the Russian government in federal election interference, in a form that is prohibited by federal criminal law.”

Jens David Ohlin, a law professor at Cornell University, is even blunter: “It’s a shocking admission of a criminal conspiracy.”

Trump Jr.‘s decision to take the meeting in and of itself likely violated campaign finance law, which does not require you to actually get anything useful from foreigners. In other words, the mere fact that Trump Jr. asked for information from a Russian national about Clinton might have constituted a federal crime.

“The law states that no person shall knowingly solicit or accept from a foreign national any contribution to a campaign of an item of value,” Goodman tells me. “There is now a clear case that Donald Trump Jr. has met all the elements of the law, which is a criminally enforced federal statute.”

Why Trump Jr. may have broken the law

The statute in question is 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510 — the law governing foreign contributions to US campaigns. There are two key passages that apply here. This is the first:

A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

The crucial phrase here is “other thing of value,” legal experts tell me. It means that the law extends beyond just cash donations. Foreigners are also banned from providing other kinds of contributions that would be the functional equivalent of a campaign donation, just provided in the form of services rather than goods. Like, say, damaging information the Russian government collected about Hillary Clinton.

“To the extent you’re using the resources of a foreign country to run your campaign — that’s an illegal campaign contribution,” Nick Akerman, an assistant special prosecutor during the Watergate investigation who now specializes in data crime, says.

Here’s the second important passage of the statute: “No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by [this law].”

The key word from Trump Jr., according to University of California Irvine election law expert Rick Hasen, is “solicit,” which has a very specific meaning in this context. To quote the relevant statute:

A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.

Trump Jr. was clearly soliciting information that he knew was coming from a foreign source. Given that political campaigns regularly pay thousands of dollars to opposition researchers to dig up dirt, it seems like damaging information on Clinton would constitute something “of value” to the Trump campaign.

The solicitation bit is why it doesn’t matter if Trump Jr. actually got useful information. The part that’s illegal, according to the experts I spoke to, is trying to acquire dirt on Clinton from a foreign source, not successfully acquiring it. And his statement more or less admits that he did, in fact, solicit this information.

“The most recent [developments] are especially significant because they include specific statements on the record conceding the Trump campaign’s expressed interest in what the Russians could provide,” Bob Bauer, White House counsel for Barack Obama from 2010 to 2011, writes at Just Security. “Those statements show intent — a clear-cut willingness to have Russian support — and they reveal specific actions undertaken to obtain it.”

Trump appears to have recognized some danger. On Monday afternoon, he hired a lawyer, Alan Futerfas, to represent him on issues relating to the Russia investigation. So far, Futerfas has not responded to a request for comment.

The emails blows the best defense he has out of the water

In order to actually nail Donald Trump Jr. on solicitation charges, experts say, prosecutors need to be able to show that he knew the person he was soliciting emails from a foreign source. Trump Jr.’s Sunday statement gave him a tiny bit of wiggle room on this point. In it, he said: “I was not told her name prior to the meeting,” implying that he didn’t know much about the person he was meeting — perhaps including, among other things, her nationality.

According to Goodman, the former Defense Department special counsel, this line was the one thing that kept Trump Jr.’s statement of from being a clear-cut confession of having violated the law. But the emails, he thinks, blow this excuse out of the water. They show that Trump Jr. went into the meeting with knowledge that he was going to the meeting in an attempt to solicit information from the Russian government.

If Bauer, Goodman, and Hasen are reading the statute correctly, then Trump Jr. has now openly admitted damaging facts that prosecutors would otherwise need to prove to make a case against him. And now we’ve seen emails that prove Trump Jr.’s intent was to solicit information from a foreign source. It seems hard to imagine federal prosecutors won’t look at that.

“I’d want to get everyone who was involved in that meeting in front of a grand jury, and find out what they say about what happened there,” Akerman, the former Watergate prosecutor, said when asked what he’d do in light of the recent news.

Mr. Futerfas certainly has his work cut out for him. So, too, to the attorneys representing Jared Kushner and former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, who attended the meeting and were CC’d on the crucial email. “The emails also directly implicate Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort, who are included on the entire email chain,” Goodman says.

And now the question becomes: What did the president know and when did he know it?