Liberal legal scholar scoffs at claims Donald Trump Jr. guilty of treason

Will Ricciardella, DCNF

Liberal constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley laid to rest many of the claims Tuesday from the media and politicos of illegality and collusion surrounding Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a “Kremlin-connected” lawyer.

Photo by Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Turley, a legal scholar at George Washington University, batted away claims of criminality, asking “does any of this constitute a clear crime or even a vague inkblot image of a crime?” His answer: no, not on the facts.

Richard Painter, a former ethics lawyer in President George W. Bush’s administration, said on MSNBC Sunday that the meeting “borders on treason.” Turley notes the specificity of Article III of the Constitution’s delineation of what exactly constitutes treason — “levying war against [the United States], and “providing aid and comfort to the enemy.” Aside from the fact that the details discussed at the meeting — if any at all —regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are unknown, the encounter does not amount to treason.

Politico reported Norm Eisen, a former White House ethics attorney, claimed that Donald Trump Jr. violated the Logan Act, a law Turley notes “has never been used to convict a single U.S. citizen and is widely viewed as facially unconstitutional.”

The Independent raised the question of a Donald Trump Jr. “conspiracy” to “defraud the United States.” No evidence is offered says Turley, and no further actions are known to have occurred. There has never been a case under the law cited that “even remotely resembles such a distortive claim.”

MSNBC’s justice analyst Matthew Miller sees a violation of federal law banning foreign contributions to federal campaigns — barring direct or indirect payments or other things of value from a foreign national — saying that “it doesn’t have to be money … it can be, potentially, accepting information.” Miller’s suggestion creates a profound legal quandary, meaning that sharing information “even possible criminal conduct by a leading political figure — would be treated the same as accepting cash,” constituting a violation of the 1st Amendment safeguards of free speech, press and freedom of association.

Follow Will Ricciardella on Twitter 

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW

Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

BPR INSIDER COMMENTS

Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!

Latest Articles