I’m not a lawyer, but…
The son of the Republican candidate for President, the campaign manager, and the son-in-law of the President chose to meet with a person they thought was a representative of the Russian government in order to get negative information about the Democratic candidate. They then denied that meeting for over a year, until the New York Times forced them to acknowledge it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-russia-email-clinton.html
It sounds incredibly shaky. It is completely unethical. Any normal politician would realize that it absolutely fails the risk/benefit analysis. Whatever they received in that meeting (and we only have Donald Junior’s word that there wasn’t anything) it wasn’t worth the very foreseeable outcome they are experiencing today. The question remains – was it a violation of Federal law?
Much as “never-Trumpers” and others would wish it, the actions by the three are not a “slam dunk,” “go directly to jail” event. However, there are several theories that would allow for Federal prosecution.
The first, and probably most far-fetched, is the Treason section of Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution. Treason is closely defined as “giving aid and comfort” to the enemies of the United States. While participating with a foreign adversary in undermining the electoral process would seem to be doing exactly that, it is unlikely that Courts would see the current US/Russia relationship as one of enemies at war. Having said that, if in the end it is shown that the Trump campaign helped direct the ongoing Russian attacks, it could end up as an included charge.
The second and likely charge, would be a violation of the Federal Campaign Laws. It is illegal for a campaign to accept money donated by a foreign citizen (or government.) The stretch in this charge, is that the Russians weren’t offering money, they were offering information. This would have to be regarded as an “in kind” contribution, an action that can be assigned a monetary value. If no other evidence is available beyond what has been published, then the charge would be “intent” to accept this contribution, and the charge would get pretty thin.
http://www.uky.edu/electionlaw/analysis/foreign-contributions-us-elections
The third possibility would require a lot more evidence that the Trump campaign was involved in directing the Russian attacks. Those actions began with a felony crime, the hacking of the DNC emails. The Trump campaign would have conspired with the Russians in the commission and/or use of those stolen documents, and therefore been involved in a pattern of corrupt practices. This could result in a “RICO” charge, like those used against organized crime.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/rico-act.html
Finally, there is the “cover up.” While it is NOT illegal to lie to the media or the people, it IS illegal to lie under oath, to lie or misrepresent on Federal security documents, and/or to lie or misrepresent to Federal investigators. As occurred in the Watergate prosecutions, many of the charges in the Trump case may end up being the “cover up” rather than the base crimes.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-808.pdf
What about the President himself? As President of the United States, he is immune from criminal prosecution (though there is discussion as to whether he can be indicted.) He can be civilly sued (that’s what caught up Bill Clinton, lying under oath in a deposition.) There are only two processes for removing the President, impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by two thirds of the Senate; or temporary removal from office under the 25th Amendment (a majority of the cabinet and the Vice President, and ultimately two thirds of the House and Senate.)
http://dahlman.online/index.php/2017/03/11/process/
We are (still) a long way from that.
