On Monday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “The Story,” George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley argued that Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer wasn’t smart, but it’s not a crime unless you broaden the campaign laws to make contacts that regularly occur between campaigns and foreign nationals crimes and the Clinton campaign could be charged if the law is that broad.
Turley said that it’s like there’s a giant Rorschach test where everyone sees crimes in ink blots. He continued, “I mean, the criminal code has defined elements to it. you just don’t find these ambiguous crimes. Some people have said this could be treason. For the love of God, treason is defined in the Constitution. This is not treason. Other people have said this could be a Logan Act violation. Well, Logan Act has been used once in 200 years and is facially unconstitutional. One said, well, if you take things of tangible value under the campaign laws and treat information like that, then maybe you have a campaign contribution violation. Well, yeah, but we haven’t seen that done. You could also treat it like a panda and say it’s an endangered species violation, but courts haven’t done that. So, I think that people need to take a breath.”
He added that while some people might see the meeting and not using a surrogate as naïve and amateurish, the meeting isn’t a crime unless you broaden the definition of criminal conduct.
Turley further stated, “What I’ve said to a lot of my friends who do legal analysis is, is this really the world you want to live in, where we broaden the definition of crimes so far that most any conversation could be a criminal act? That’s a very dangerous world to live in, but more importantly, if information is now a thing of tangible value under federal campaign laws, then the Clinton campaign could be charged with the same type of offense, and a wide variety of other campaigns could be charged. I mean, there’s a point at which you have to show some element of maturity and stand back and tell people — look, this is worthy we have an investigation. But you shouldn’t suggest that this is a clear evidence of a criminal act.”
He concluded that receiving information from a foreign source isn’t a crime by itself unless you “radically broaden” campaign finance rules and that “campaigns and aides meet with foreign leaders and nationals all time. They share information about trade and other issues. Sometimes they share information that runs against their opponent in a campaign. That is fairly routine. Now, what is not routine is to have high-ranking people like this meet with someone without knowing the nature of the meeting. That was not a smart move to make, but it doesn’t make it a crime. And so, people have got to be very careful. If this is a crime, then a wide array of contacts that routinely occur between politicians and foreign nationals would also be a crime, and then you raise serious free speech and association concerns under the Constitution.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett