Trump Jr.'S Campaign Finance Law: Guilty Or Not?

In 2016, Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, who he believed would offer damaging information about Hillary Clinton. This meeting was also attended by Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort. The revelation of this meeting has raised questions about whether Trump Jr. broke campaign finance law by soliciting contributions from a foreign national or foreign government. Federal law prohibits foreign nationals from contributing anything of value to American political campaigns, and no one is allowed to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national to help a candidate. Experts and watchdog groups argue that Trump Jr. violated this law, while others disagree.

Did Don Jr. knowingly solicit a contribution from a foreign national?

In June 2016, Donald Trump Jr. met with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer, after learning that she had damaging information to offer about Hillary Clinton. In an email setting up the meeting, Rob Goldstone, a British music publicist, indicated that the information came from the Russian government. In his emailed response, Trump Jr. appeared enthusiastic about the prospect of getting his hands on the material. "If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer," he said.

Trump Jr.'s actions have led to questions about whether he knowingly solicited a contribution from a foreign national. Federal law prohibits foreign nationals from contributing any "thing of value" in connection with any federal election. The statute also says no American shall "knowingly solicit, accept, or receive" any "contribution or donation" from a foreign national in connection with an election.

Legal experts are divided on whether Trump Jr.'s actions constitute a violation of this statute. Some argue that providing dirt on Hillary Clinton is a "thing of value" and that Trump Jr.'s email exchange constitutes a solicitation. Others disagree, arguing that the statute is not aimed at regulating this type of activity.

It is important to note that, regardless of whether the information was actually received or not, the mere solicitation of a contribution from a foreign national may be considered a violation of the law. Trump Jr. has denied any wrongdoing, claiming that he did not know the specifics of who he was meeting with and that the meeting did not result in any useful information.

Watchdog groups have filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice, accusing Trump Jr. of illegally coordinating with Russia and soliciting contributions from a foreign national. The outcome of these complaints remains to be seen, and it is unclear if any charges will be brought against Trump Jr.

Did the Clinton information qualify as a contribution?

The Clinton information could be interpreted as a "thing of value" and thus qualify as a contribution. This is because the information was offered as opposition research, which is considered valuable in campaigns.

However, some legal experts disagree with this interpretation, arguing that the type of information provided is not the kind of thing that campaign finance statutes are intended to regulate. There is also a question of whether the information was actually received by the Trump campaign, as this may not be necessary to violate the solicitation aspect of the law.

Ultimately, the determination of whether the Clinton information qualified as a contribution under campaign finance law is complex and subject to differing legal interpretations.

In an email exchange with Rob Goldstone, a music publicist with ties to Russia, Donald Trump Jr. was told that he would be meeting with a "Russian government attorney" who had "information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia." Goldstone added that the information was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump" and would be "highly useful" to Trump's campaign. Trump Jr. responded enthusiastically, stating, "If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer."

The meeting with the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, took place on June 9, 2016, and included the attendance of Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his former campaign manager, Paul Manafort. Despite Trump Jr.'s eagerness to obtain the information, Veselnitskaya has claimed that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss U.S. sanctions on Russia and that she did not possess any damaging information about Clinton.

Did Don Jr. violate the 'solicitation aspect of the law'?

There is a strong case that Donald Trump Jr. violated the solicitation aspect of the law.

In June 2016, Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, who he believed would offer damaging information about Hillary Clinton. In an email exchange with Rob Goldstone, a music publicist with ties to Russia, Trump Jr. was told that he would be meeting with a "Russian government attorney" who had "information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to [his] father." In his response, Trump Jr. appeared enthusiastic about the prospect, stating, "If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer."

Legal experts argue that this exchange constitutes a violation of the solicitation aspect of campaign finance law, which prohibits any American from "knowingly solicit [ing], accept [ing], or receiv [ing] from a foreign national any contribution or donation" in connection with any election. The law defines a ""contribution" as anything of value provided to a campaign, and opposition research does appear to be something of value. In this case, the offer of damaging information about Clinton from a foreign national would likely be considered a contribution of value, and Trump Jr.'s response indicates that he was soliciting this contribution.

However, there is some disagreement among legal experts. Some argue that providing dirt on Clinton may not be the type of "thing of value" that the campaign finance statute aims to regulate. Additionally, it may be difficult to determine if unlawful solicitation occurred, as there is little established law or precedent in this area. Trump Jr. would have had to make an express or implied ask for something of value, and it would need to be proven that he knew he was meeting with a foreign national. Trump Jr. has claimed that he was not told Veselnitskaya's name prior to the meeting, which could provide him with some wiggle room in terms of his knowledge of her nationality.

Did Don Jr.'s email exchange with Goldstone confirm the campaign was actively seeking Russian help?

In June 2016, Donald Trump Jr. had an email exchange with publicist Rob Goldstone, who offered to set up a meeting with a "Russian government attorney" who had "information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to [Trump Jr.'s] father." This information was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." In response, Trump Jr. said, "If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer."

In the email exchange, Trump Jr. and Goldstone set up a meeting for June 9, 2016, at 3 pm at Trump Jr.'s office. The meeting was attended by Trump Jr., his brother-in-law Jared Kushner, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya.

Legal experts and campaign watchdog groups argue that this email exchange and subsequent meeting confirm that the Trump campaign was actively seeking Russian help and may have violated federal campaign finance law. The relevant statute bars foreign nationals from making any "contribution or donation of money or other things of value" in connection with any election and prohibits Americans from "knowingly solicit[ing], accept[ing], or receiv[ing] any such contribution or donation."

Trump Jr.'s enthusiasm for the offer of incriminating information about Clinton and his coordination with Goldstone to set up the meeting with a Russian national appear to support the claim that the Trump campaign was actively seeking Russian help. However, it is important to note that the legal interpretation of these actions is subject to some disagreement, and the ultimate determination of any wrongdoing would depend on further investigation and legal proceedings.

Did Don Jr. commit conspiracy or obstruction?

In 2017, several watchdog groups filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) accusing Donald Trump Jr. of illegally coordinating with Russia during the 2016 campaign and thereby breaking campaign finance law. The complaint was based on emails that showed Trump Jr. had set up a meeting with a Russian lawyer to obtain information on Hillary Clinton. The emails revealed that Trump Jr. was aware that the offer of opposition research came from the Russian government, which constitutes a "valuable in-kind contribution" to his father's presidential campaign.

Legal experts weighed in on the matter, with some arguing that Trump Jr. may have violated a federal statute that prohibits political campaigns from "knowingly solicit[ing], accept[ing], or receiv[ing] any contribution or donation from a foreign national". This statute is part of federal law that prohibits foreign nationals from contributing any "thing of value" in connection with a federal election.

However, there were differing opinions among legal experts. Some argued that the statute was not intended to regulate the type of "thing of value" offered in this case, and that receiving information about Clinton may not constitute a violation. Additionally, it was pointed out that to violate the solicitation aspect of the law, the contribution did not actually need to be received, and the solicitation itself could be considered a violation.

While the complaint accused Trump Jr. of breaking campaign finance law, it did not directly address the question of whether he committed conspiracy or obstruction. However, Chiraag Bains, a Harvard Law School fellow and former federal prosecutor, suggested that there "could also be related exposure, such as conspiracy or obstruction, depending on what additional facts come out".

In conclusion, while the specific accusation of violating campaign finance law does not directly address conspiracy or obstruction, the nature of the allegations and potential violations could provide a basis for further investigation into these areas. The extent of any wrongdoing by Trump Jr. would depend on additional facts and the interpretation of the relevant statutes by legal authorities.

Frequently asked questions