Major legal questions surround Donald Trump Jr.’s emails

Reactions ranged from cries of treason to dismissals of the revelation as a product of “hysteria” over the Russia controversy. But even some of the president’s most consistent supporters conceded the emails, which contradicted previous statements from both Trump Jr. and the White House, presented a real problem for President Trump.

And some legal experts rushed Tuesday to suggest the president’s eldest son may have placed himself in legal jeopardy by attempting to obtain information from a foreign operative that he believed would damage a political opponent, even if such information never changed hands.

Here are a few of the thorny legal questions surround Trump Jr.’s meeting.

Did Donald Trump Jr. commit a crime?

The emails published Tuesday presented the strongest evidence yet that collusion — an allegation used so ubiquitously by Trump’s political opponents that it has lost a precise meaning — may have occurred between the Trump campaign and Russians looking to weaken Clinton.

However, collusion in itself is not defined as an illegal activity, and some analysts expressed doubt that Trump Jr. violated the law by engaging in what appeared to be a form of collusion with a Russian attorney.

Jens David Ohlin, vice dean at Cornell Law School, suggested “conspiracy” to commit an election-related crime was a more accurate term than “collusion” when looking at the questions raised by the Trump Jr. emails.

“The language of ‘collusion’ most often comes up during the context of the counterintelligence investigation, which is separate from any criminal investigation,” Ohlin told the Washington Examiner. “Counter-intelligence agents are tasked with determining the activities of foreign powers within the United States, and within that context, they would certainly care about any U.S. nationals who were colluding with the foreign powers.”

Trump Jr. attended the now-infamous meeting last summer with the expectation that Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian attorney who reached out through an intermediary, would provide him with information that could damage the Clinton campaign. When their conversation instead focused on Russian adoptions, Trump Jr. said he cut the appointment short and has since highlighted its innocuous outcome in his defenses of the meeting.

“In the context of a criminal investigation, the more relevant concepts are solicitation and conspiracy, which are inchoate crimes punishable even if the crime to which the solicitation or conspiracy is directed is never brought to fruition,” Ohlin said. “For example, someone can be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder or solicitation to commit murder, even if the killing never occurs.”

Other legal experts cast doubt on the idea that Trump Jr.’s emails exposed any potential criminal activity.

“There is no crime in listening to people who say that they have incriminating information on a political opponent, even a foreigner,” Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote on his blog.

Still more analysts raised the possibility that the Russian lawyer’s invitation to Trump Jr. constituted an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign. In-kind contributions allow campaigns to track the valuable goods and services they receive as donations, in addition to the money they accept.

Critics questioned whether Trump Jr.’s acceptance of the invitation ran afoul of campaign finance laws that bar foreign governments from contributing to American campaigns.

“There is plenty of evidence this meeting violated the law. He set up the meeting with the Russian lawyer because he thought he would receive something of value for the campaign,” Brendan Fischer, an attorney at the Campaign Legal Center, told the Los Angeles Times.

Did Donald Trump Jr. commit treason?

Democratic lawmakers quickly raised the spectre of treason after Trump Jr. tweeted copies of his emails on Tuesday.

“If this isn’t treasonous, I’m not sure what is,” said Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., of Trump Jr.’s admission.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., said the emails proved Trump’s son was “willing to betray” his country in order to “cheat for his dad’s campaign.” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., suggested the probe into Russian collusion allegations should now become a “treason investigation.”

And Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said the meeting confirmed that the Trump campaign “sought to collude with a hostile foreign power to subvert America’s democracy.”

But treason is a narrowly-defined crime that owes its parameters to the Constitution, which spells out what activity would fall under its scope: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

Fewer than three dozen people have ever been convicted of treason in U.S. history.

Carlton F.W. Larson, a law professor at the University of California at Davis, noted in a February op-ed for the Washington Post that was cited widely this week in the wake of the Trump Jr. revelations that Trump campaign associates could never be prosecuted for treason, even if they did collude with Russians, because treason requires collusion with a designated enemy of the U.S.

“An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war,” Larson wrote. “Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies.”

Did Trump associates lie to investigators?

Trump, his aides and many of his former associates have spent months denying any foreknowledge of Russian hacks, any contact with Russian officials and any activity that could fall under even the broadest definition of collusion with the Kremlin.

As probes in the House, Senate and Department of Justice have unfolded, numerous current and former associates have answered questions from investigators or plan to in the future, and many have been asked to provide documents related to their campaign activities.

It is unclear whether Trump Jr. had already provided his email chain to the special counsel team led by Robert Mueller.

But individuals who are found to have misled investigators about their knowledge of events thanks to media-driven revelations like the Trump Jr. meeting could face additional scrutiny and could ultimately attract perjury or obstruction of justice charges.

Trump Jr.’s statements to the public have already been proven false by subsequent revelations.

In March, he told the New York Times he had never met with any Russian officials.

“Did I meet with people that were Russian? I’m sure, I’m sure I did,” Trump Jr. told the Times earlier this year. “But none that were set up. None that I can think of at the moment. And certainly none that I was representing the campaign in any way.”

Trump Jr.’s emails make clear he believed Veselnitskaya was connected with the Russian government at the time he agreed to sit down with her.

Could this ultimately lead to impeachment?

Some Democrats on the fringes of their party, such as Rep. Maxine Waters of California, have called for Trump’s impeachment since long before his son’s meeting came to light.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., cautioned her caucus in May against whipping up excitement for an impeachment vote that will likely never come.

But the Trump Jr. emails have already inspired talk of treason among congressional Democrats and may have created the conditions for even more members to push the possibility of impeachment.

Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress make a Trump impeachment extremely unlikely even under the worst of circumstances. Democrats would currently need to persuade 19 Senate Republicans to remove a president from their own party.

Few Republicans emerged to criticize Trump on Tuesday following his son’s revelations, with most preferring to stay silent for fear that any defense of the president could soon be contradicted by another damaging development.