Legal expert: No “crime” committed by Donald Trump Jr. in talking with a foreign source about NOTHING
07/12/2017 / By JD Heyes / Comments
Legal expert: No “crime” committed by Donald Trump Jr. in talking with a foreign source about NOTHING

The insane Left-wing media’s latest assault against President Donald J. Trump has been launched not against him but against his son, Don Jr., in what many see as the latest desperate attempt to perpetuate the myth that the Trump campaign “colluded” with Russia to “steal the election” from Hillary Clinton.

A series of reports by The New York Times over the weekend and into Monday basically make three claims: 1) A Trump Tower meeting shortly after Trump won the GOP nomination was attended by Don Jr., then-campaign manager Paul Manafort, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, and a Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya; 2) the premise of the meeting was for Veselnitskaya to pass along damaging information gathered by the Russian government about Clinton; and 3) Don Jr. had been told in advance, via email, the purpose of the meeting was to receive said information. (Related: Did the Deep State plan it’s bogus “Russia narrative” to discredit Trump because they believed ALL along he would BEAT Hillary Clinton?)

Mind you, as usual nobody is talking about the fact that information used in these reports was illegally leaked to the Times, but that’s par for the course.

Anyway, since the allegations surfaced, Ben Shapiro, writing at the Daily Wire noted regarding Don Jr.:

Trump Jr. originally didn’t report the meeting. Then he said that the meeting was about adoptions. Then he changed his story again and said that the meeting was supposed to be about opposition research on Hillary Clinton, but he made no reference to whether he knew Veselnitskaya had information from the Russian government.


Smoking gun, right? Collusion proven, right?


For one, even the Times acknowledged no information regarding Clinton or her campaign was ever divulged. For another, Veselnitskaya told NBC News Tuesday she had no connection to the Kremlin and met with Don Jr. and staff for the purpose of discussing a U.S. law called the Magnitsky Act.

“I never had any damaging or sensitive information about Hillary Clinton. It was never my intention to have that,” she said, then added cryptically: “It is quite possible that maybe they were longing for such information. They wanted it so badly that they could only hear the thought that they wanted.”

As this continues to play out, one thing is clear to constitutional law professor and expert Jonathan Turley: Nothing that’s being reported involving Don Jr. and associates is illegal, nor does it prove “collusion.” It’s just more media smoke and mirrors.

“There is not a clear criminal act in such a meeting based on the information that we have. Moreover, it is not necessarily unprecedented,” Turley wrote on his blog. “There is no crime in listening to people who say that they have incriminating information on a political opponent, even a foreigner.”

Turley hit back against unfounded allegations of “treason” leveled on Trump-hating MSNBC by Richard Painter, a former ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, pointing out that such a dramatic charge, to be accurate, involves “‘levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.’”

“To say that this type of meeting even borders on treason is quite a departure from the language and cases governing that crime,” Turley wrote.

To that end, as Shapiro pointed out, Veselnitskaya has said that Don Jr. was willing to meet, but that Kushner left the short 20-minute meeting after a few minutes, and Manafort was disinterested, ignoring her conversation as he spoke on the phone. Furthermore, Don Jr. said the information she discussed was vague and contradictory, and that she never did supply any usable opposition research.

Furthermore, as The Daily Caller’s Peter Hasson wrote Tuesday, the Clinton campaign attempted to obtain Trump-related opposition research using Ukrainian government officials.

So, sorry Painter — no treason.

And no “collusion,” either. Try as the Left-wing hacks at the Times may, putting lipstick on a pig doesn’t a pageant winner make.

For the latest developments on this story, visit

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for and, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:

Submit a correction >>

, , , , , ,

This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
Get Our Free Email Newsletter
Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more.
Your privacy is protected. Subscription confirmation required.

Get the world's best independent media newsletter delivered straight to your inbox.

By continuing to browse our site you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.