Judge Napolitano: Don Jr.'s Meeting With the Russians Warrants Criminal Investigation

PJ Media ^ | 07/17/2017 | Debra Heine

[SeekAndFind]

Fox News' chief judicial analyst disagrees with President Donald Trump's contention that his son's June 2016 meeting with Russian operatives in expectation of getting dirt on Hillary Clinton is standard practice in American politics.

Judge Andrew Napolitano said on America's Newsroom Monday morning that Team Trump's actions were "suspicious" and actually warranted a criminal investigation.

It is a crime to receive "something of value" from a foreign person or government, Judge Nap declared. So if Don Jr. had accepted damaging material about Clinton from the Russians, "that would have been a felony," Napolitano explained. He added that "that would have been the completion of a crime."

"Often, these nonviolent criminal events don't happen all at once. They happen in stages," Napolitano continued. "So the question is, is this enough to commence a criminal investigation? Answer: Yes. Because it is suspicious that they met with these people, that they didn't consult a lawyer, that one of these people is a former KGB, GRU -- that's the Russian military intelligence arm."

The judge surmised that there could be only two reasons why Kushner did not inform the FBI about the meeting when he filled out his national security application.

Either this "was a bumbling, foolish thing to do, or this was the beginning of some steps in furtherance of acquiring this information," Judge Nap said.

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO

[Electric Graffiti]

“Should I agree with a lefty like Dersh or the judge?”

They’re both lefty lying frauds—aholes. Both went into law to pervert it.

Only morons would sit and watch either of these POS.

Neither one should be given a second of airtime. capiche?

[jmaroneps37]

And? I should care what Sick Morris with a law degree says? When has he been right before? Remember Faux News is NOT our friend.

[Repealthe17thAmendment]

One of the problems with saying that information is something of value is that it's not clear what the value is; nor is it clear by what basis that value is determined.

The law is obviously meant to refer to money or gifts with an objective value that can be measured in currency.

But what are words worth?

Would an article from a foreign journalist, or a speech from a foreign leader have value? Of course it does, that's why they say the things they do. They want their opinions to influence others.

So, if DJT, Jr. were approached and told that a Russian wanted to give him a million dollars for his father's campaign, then I would think there might be a problem. But, when the something of "value" cannot be measured, or spent on campaign activities, I think some people are grasping at straws that they only hope can be misinterpreted for their own, hidden agenda.

[drjimmy]

I'd be curious to see any references you can post on that one.

https://cg-519a459a-0ea3-42c2-b7bc-fa1143481f74.s3-us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/legal/aos/72021.pdf

http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/00002BF9.pdf

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2007-22.pdf

And here is one specifically related to opposition research: http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/28044192498.pdf

[1Old Pro]

It is a crime to receive "something of value" from a foreign person or government,

I wish he would cite the election law statute he is referencing.

[xzins]

Sekulow, Garrett, Dershowitz, and Fitton, all lawyers disagree with Napolitano.

Basically, said it’s not a crime to seek information. Otherwise, campaigns can’t be informed on their opponent. First amendment.

1st amendment overrules a peculiar reading of campaign finance law. Evidently, it’s even legal to have foreign volunteers work on your campaign.

[amihow]

What about McCain and junk he got on Trump?

If Don Jr. had gotten something turned it over to feds like McCain did, that O.K.?

[MayflowerMadam]

“Basically, said it’s not a crime to seek information. Otherwise, campaigns can’t be informed on their opponent.”

If it was a crime for DJT, Jr. to check out opposition research when offered, then it was a crime for Hillary to take the “pussy tape” from NBC when offered.

[drjimmy]

The meeting was not with a foreign national but with a dual citizen. No crime.

Natalia Veselnitskaya is not a dual citizen, but a Russian foreign national. She is the person who was brought to the meeting to provide the incriminating information.

[xzins]

Yep. And NBC has foreign affiliates

[KC_for_Freedom]

I agree that the first amendment protects the transmission of information as “not something of value”. This phrase is intended to refer to money or a quid pro quo. As far as we know nothing changed hands and no payment was made. This can get confusing in a campaign as the payment may be a favorable position later after the election (Something Hillary is suggested of offering via her foundation.)

Usually the Judge knows his law, but in this case I believe he has fallen in with the opposition.

As to the security clearance form, the form is confusing and demanding and can require long hours of research to determine what meetings were attended, what clubs and movements were attended or joined. Jared can probably be excused to some degree for not getting detailed lists correctly the first or second time. The FBI can usually be trusted to assist in getting what they want, it does not have to be adversarial until they find you are deliberately hiding something. But the penalty here would be lying to the FBI.

[ExTxMarine]

You assume that any information shared, is “of value”. The courts have in the past, and should continue in the future, given great leeway towards the defendant in these cases involving the meaning “of value”.

Again, by your argument, if a foreign national offers DJT, Jr. a stick of gum, they should be investigated for a crime. That’s a ludicrous interpretation of the law you cited.

Judge Numbnuts was simply doing his typical anti-Trump crap on the boob-tube. Sorry, I’m not buying that which you and the Judge are selling. Thanks anyway. Move along.

[petro45acp]

“SFW? Why don’t you actually call for the criminal investigation of something HARMFUL, Judge?

IRS?
Fast & Furious?
Benghazi?
Unsecures server?
Comey’s leaks?
Rice’s unmasking?
Slick & Fat Loretta?”

Exactly! In addition, Wasn’t there an undercover FBI agent present at the meeting (starting to look more like a confab...a hoodle...a rendezvous)working for zippy the pQQpy-head’s mueller? Was there an undercover agent around for the hildabeast’s Ukrainian shenanigans? If there was, would either have been wrong to let someone know that dirty deeds were being done dirt cheap? Maybe the information was being held in reserve as bargaining baksheesh for when the beast was annointed.

What would really be nice? ALL these politicritters at ALL levels positively un........FOULing themselves and rogering up to their oaths, rogering up to the constitution, rogering up to the principals of the founding of this country, and knocking off all this high-dollar-kabuki bu115hlt!

.02,
YMMV
KYPD

[xzins]

Comcast owns NBC and has worldwide operations including commie
China

[Alberta's Child]

1. The first one probably wouldn't apply here. That was a case where a prior candidate had commissioned a poll specifically for a campaign in the same race, and the cost of that poll could easily be documented.

2. The second one assigns "value" to the documents because they contained contact information for political partners and local political figures that would have required research on the part of the Bush/Cheney campaign. And even at that, the FEC recommended no further action because the value of the "contribution" was minimal.

3. In the third one, the FEC says "Yes" to every question (including at least two that I would have thought would be "No") except the last one. And in that particular case, the FEC admits that the "value" is very low but considers it a "thing of value" -- probably because the Canadian government's expenditure of money for those resources is clearly documented. Interestingly, the FEC says the campaign in question is free to BUY that information from their Canadian counterparts ... which everything I'm hearing in the Trump Jr. case would be problematic.

4. In the last case, it looks like the key point in the FEC finding related to the status of the person and the company of interest as part of a "political advocacy group" instead of just an ordinary person. And in the supporting evidence for its decision, the FEC was able to document the exact amount of the expenditures that were made by this outside company in the activities that were the subject of the complaint. I'm not sure how -- or even if -- this would relate to the Trump Jr. case.

[New Jersey Realist]

I’ve lost all respect for the so-called judge. He’s a liberal whore.

[drjimmy]

Those are all good points. One other case that might have bearing--and I can't recall if it was from the FEC or a court ruling--ended with a ruling that the "value" of a non-monetary campaign contribution should be determined by the recipient's perceived value of that contribution. Hypothetically, that could mean Don Jr.'s "I love it" in response to the proposed offering of dirt on Hillary could help demonstrate its value to the campaign.

Ultimately, of course, what Napolitano or Dershowitz or Sekulow or any of those guys say on TV doesn't matter in the slightest because it's all just entertainment for the masses. The only thing that matters is what Special Counsel Robert Mueller does, and he is doing it far away from our TVs.

[WKUHilltopper]

“It is a crime to receive “something of value” from a foreign person or government, Judge Nap declared.”

So, we should be expecting these warrants for Killary?

[seastay]

As long as the intent has nothing to do with information either stolen or classified, the INFORMATION is fair, and the right to assembly is a right guaranteed by the Constitution !

[Phlap]

Please, tell us how you really feel. lol