(The incident happened before the hack of the Democratic National Committee was revealed, so there’s no indication that Trump Jr. thought that the offered information had been obtained illegally.)
The theory is this:
- A federal statute makes it a crime for “a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make … a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value … in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.”
- Politically damaging information, especially deliberately assembled opposition-research-style information, is a “thing of value.”
- Therefore, when someone offered the unspecified information to Trump Jr., saying it was “some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” and Trump Jr. responded, “if it’s what you say I love it,” Trump Jr. was soliciting the commission of a crime — the crime of a foreign national making a contribution of a thing of value in connection with a federal election — and such solicitation was itself a crime.
As I argued Wednesday, though, reading “thing of value” to include such politically damaging information would outlaw a broad range of constitutionally protected opposition research.
Such a reading would therefore make the statute unconstitutionally overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment..."
Such a reading would therefore make the statute unconstitutionally overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment..."
Interesting!
Read it all!
These baby photos are pawsitively purr-fect.
