SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Donald Trump Jr. arrives at Trump Tower in New York City. The president's son is under fire for meeting with a Kremlin-connected lawyer during the campaign. (Photo: John Moore/Getty Images)
Following the latest explosive details about Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Kremlin-connected lawyer during last year's campaign, in which he hoped to receive damaging information about Hillary Clinton, legal experts are saying the encounter could be proof that "collusion"--or even "treason"--took place.
Trump Jr. confirmed the New York Times' initial reports that he attended the meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya (infamous for challenging the Magnitsky Act, which blacklists suspected Russian human rights abusers) at Trump Tower, along with then-campaign chairman Paul J. Manafort, and Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law.
However, Trump Jr. and Manafort have since lawyered up, with the Times reporting Monday that Jr. "was informed in an email" that Veselnitskaya's promised dirt on Clinton "was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father's candidacy."
In the wake of the Monday's report, the government ethics watchdogs at CREW said it would be "hard to overstate how huge this is."
MSNBC's chief legal correspondent, Ari Melber, laid out the legal implications on Twitter:
\u201cLegally significant because this is\n(1) written evidence\n(2) before the meeting \n(3) stating Russian gov involvement https://t.co/Ae5QbK0sh4\u201d— \u201cthe reporter\u201d (@\u201cthe reporter\u201d) 1499736503
Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson called the latest revelations a "legal game-changer" because it shows top members of the Trump campaign--in this case the president's own son--willing to accept information believed to be coming from a foreign government.
"Despite what Trump apologists may say, it is not normal practice for a campaign to welcome information undermining an opponent, regardless of the source," explained Robinson. "In 2000, the Al Gore campaign was anonymously sent briefing books and a video that George W. Bush had used to prepare for an upcoming debate. Gore campaign officials immediately turned the material over to the FBI--which opened a criminal investigation."
Trump Jr.'s lawyer claims the reports are "much ado about nothing," but former assistant Watergate special prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks disagrees.
"It is collusion with a foreign adversary if they were working together to get the information from the Russian government," she said Monday night on MSNBC. "And that's what this looks like, it looks like clear proof of collusion."
But even before Monday's revelations, there was talk of treason among legal experts.
"This was an effort to get opposition research on an opponent in an American political campaign from the Russians, who were known to be engaged in spying inside the United States," said Richard Painter, an ethics lawyer under former President George W. Bush, on Sunday. "We do not get our opposition research from spies, we do not collaborate with Russian spies, unless we want to be accused of treason."
"This is unacceptable," he added. "This borders on treason, if it is not itself treason."
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Following the latest explosive details about Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Kremlin-connected lawyer during last year's campaign, in which he hoped to receive damaging information about Hillary Clinton, legal experts are saying the encounter could be proof that "collusion"--or even "treason"--took place.
Trump Jr. confirmed the New York Times' initial reports that he attended the meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya (infamous for challenging the Magnitsky Act, which blacklists suspected Russian human rights abusers) at Trump Tower, along with then-campaign chairman Paul J. Manafort, and Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law.
However, Trump Jr. and Manafort have since lawyered up, with the Times reporting Monday that Jr. "was informed in an email" that Veselnitskaya's promised dirt on Clinton "was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father's candidacy."
In the wake of the Monday's report, the government ethics watchdogs at CREW said it would be "hard to overstate how huge this is."
MSNBC's chief legal correspondent, Ari Melber, laid out the legal implications on Twitter:
\u201cLegally significant because this is\n(1) written evidence\n(2) before the meeting \n(3) stating Russian gov involvement https://t.co/Ae5QbK0sh4\u201d— \u201cthe reporter\u201d (@\u201cthe reporter\u201d) 1499736503
Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson called the latest revelations a "legal game-changer" because it shows top members of the Trump campaign--in this case the president's own son--willing to accept information believed to be coming from a foreign government.
"Despite what Trump apologists may say, it is not normal practice for a campaign to welcome information undermining an opponent, regardless of the source," explained Robinson. "In 2000, the Al Gore campaign was anonymously sent briefing books and a video that George W. Bush had used to prepare for an upcoming debate. Gore campaign officials immediately turned the material over to the FBI--which opened a criminal investigation."
Trump Jr.'s lawyer claims the reports are "much ado about nothing," but former assistant Watergate special prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks disagrees.
"It is collusion with a foreign adversary if they were working together to get the information from the Russian government," she said Monday night on MSNBC. "And that's what this looks like, it looks like clear proof of collusion."
But even before Monday's revelations, there was talk of treason among legal experts.
"This was an effort to get opposition research on an opponent in an American political campaign from the Russians, who were known to be engaged in spying inside the United States," said Richard Painter, an ethics lawyer under former President George W. Bush, on Sunday. "We do not get our opposition research from spies, we do not collaborate with Russian spies, unless we want to be accused of treason."
"This is unacceptable," he added. "This borders on treason, if it is not itself treason."
Following the latest explosive details about Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Kremlin-connected lawyer during last year's campaign, in which he hoped to receive damaging information about Hillary Clinton, legal experts are saying the encounter could be proof that "collusion"--or even "treason"--took place.
Trump Jr. confirmed the New York Times' initial reports that he attended the meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya (infamous for challenging the Magnitsky Act, which blacklists suspected Russian human rights abusers) at Trump Tower, along with then-campaign chairman Paul J. Manafort, and Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law.
However, Trump Jr. and Manafort have since lawyered up, with the Times reporting Monday that Jr. "was informed in an email" that Veselnitskaya's promised dirt on Clinton "was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father's candidacy."
In the wake of the Monday's report, the government ethics watchdogs at CREW said it would be "hard to overstate how huge this is."
MSNBC's chief legal correspondent, Ari Melber, laid out the legal implications on Twitter:
\u201cLegally significant because this is\n(1) written evidence\n(2) before the meeting \n(3) stating Russian gov involvement https://t.co/Ae5QbK0sh4\u201d— \u201cthe reporter\u201d (@\u201cthe reporter\u201d) 1499736503
Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson called the latest revelations a "legal game-changer" because it shows top members of the Trump campaign--in this case the president's own son--willing to accept information believed to be coming from a foreign government.
"Despite what Trump apologists may say, it is not normal practice for a campaign to welcome information undermining an opponent, regardless of the source," explained Robinson. "In 2000, the Al Gore campaign was anonymously sent briefing books and a video that George W. Bush had used to prepare for an upcoming debate. Gore campaign officials immediately turned the material over to the FBI--which opened a criminal investigation."
Trump Jr.'s lawyer claims the reports are "much ado about nothing," but former assistant Watergate special prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks disagrees.
"It is collusion with a foreign adversary if they were working together to get the information from the Russian government," she said Monday night on MSNBC. "And that's what this looks like, it looks like clear proof of collusion."
But even before Monday's revelations, there was talk of treason among legal experts.
"This was an effort to get opposition research on an opponent in an American political campaign from the Russians, who were known to be engaged in spying inside the United States," said Richard Painter, an ethics lawyer under former President George W. Bush, on Sunday. "We do not get our opposition research from spies, we do not collaborate with Russian spies, unless we want to be accused of treason."
"This is unacceptable," he added. "This borders on treason, if it is not itself treason."