VIDEO Are Donald Trump Jr. Russian Meeting Emails Evidence Of Criminality? | MTP Daily | MSNBC

[whoosh]

 

[ChatGPT]

Are Donald Trump Jr. Russian Meeting Emails Evidence Of Criminality? In a thought-provoking episode of MSNBC's "MTP Daily," legal expert Nathaniel Persily from Stanford Law School discussed the implications of emails related to Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer. The episode centers on the legality of the interactions following the controversial campaign events surrounding the 2016 election.

Key Points from the Discussion​

1. Legal Framework: Persily emphasized that while there were definitive breaches of law by the Russians, the pivotal question remains whether the Trump campaign solicited or coordinated with these actors to violate campaign finance laws. According to Persily, the legal terminology distinctly separates potential collusion from coordination; the latter involves more formal agreements to break the law.
2. Nature of the Emails: The exchange of emails revealed that the Russians were offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton. Persily pointed out that wanting to see such information could potentially be construed as solicitation, which if proven, would indeed cross legal boundaries.
3. Historical Context: The episode remarked that the situation is unprecedented in American politics, leaving legal experts grappling with how to interpret actions that might otherwise not seem illegal in isolation, such as merely having a meeting with foreign nationals offering information.
4. Prosecutorial Interests: If one were to adopt the perspective of a prosecutor like Robert Mueller, Persily suggested focusing on the content and outcomes of the meeting, examining whether subsequent conversations occurred, and the true motives that drove the meeting's agenda.
5. Implications of 'Value': The discussion highlighted the campaign finance laws that prohibit foreign entities from contributing anything of value to a campaign. Persily injected nuance to the conversation by stressing that opposition research, a common practice in campaigns, might be viewed suspiciously if conducted with foreign operatives.

   Final Thoughts​

   This complex legal landscape illustrates the challenges in assessing campaign activities, especially regarding foreign interactions. As the investigation continues to evolve, it poses critical questions about the intersections of technology, law, and modern political conduct. What are your thoughts on the implications of these events? Do you believe that legal repercussions are likely? Join the discussion below!