Conspiracy out of the Trump Tower Meeting? Judge Napolitano Discusses How

How much trouble could Donald Trump Jr. be in?

This topic is getting a lot of attention, and for good reason.

Was the meeting between Donald Trump Jr, Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, and several Kremlin-connected Russians at the now infamous 2016 Trump Tower meeting illegal?

It was a meeting that was prompted by an email to Trump Jr. promising political “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.

Not only did the email promise political dirt, but it specified that the “dirt” was coming from the Russian government, as their part in aiding the Trump campaign.

Donald Trump Jr. sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee and claimed his father knew nothing of the meeting, which he said lasted about 20 minutes and yielded little.

In the past couple of weeks, former Trump attorney and “fixer,” Michael Cohen has suggested that then-candidate Trump knew about that meeting beforehand and approved.

Former Trump strategist and Svengali, Steve Bannon, has said that the notion that the elder Trump was not fully informed of the meeting was hogwash.

As for the recent narrative from the White House, it has morphed from claiming the meeting was about adoption to saying there’s nothing wrong with gathering oppo-research.

That’s right, to an extent.

Fox News contributor and senior judicial analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano weighed in on the controversy with the “Fox and Friends” hosts on Tuesday morning.

When asked by host, Steve Doocy, on the legality of receiving opposition “dirt” during a campaign, Napolitano pointed out that that was perfectly acceptable.

Then came the “but…”

“There are federal statutes that prohibit receiving something of value from a foreign national, foreign entity, or foreign government,” he continued. “So was the purpose of this meeting to receive something of value? That’s something Bob Mueller’s going to have to look at.”

We’ve seen others argue that “something of value” doesn’t necessarily mean money or some other physical token. It could be anything that served as a benefit.

“Is there a crime here, or conspiracy?” Ainsley Earhardt asked.

“I don’t know the answer to that. But unfortunately, a lot of these statutes are written to make it easier for the government to convict,” Napolitano replied. “So if there was an agreement to receive dirt on Hillary, from the Russians, even if the dirt never came, if those who agreed, at least one of them, took some step in furtherance of the agreement, then there is the potential crime for conspiracy.”

And there has been a lot of talk of the lack of collusion proven in the ongoing Russia probe.

“Collusion” is an umbrella term, meant to encapsulate a series of crimes. One of those crimes that falls under that umbrella is conspiracy.

It looks bad for Donald Trump Jr., who may also be on the hook for perjury, given his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

At least he’s on the hook, if Cohen’s claims can be proven.

So what might the president be facing?

That’s hard to say. Again, it would have to be proven that he knew about the meeting.

Right now, we don’t know what Mueller has that he’s sitting on, but with what we do have is enough to explain why President Trump’s tweets have been more unhinged than normal, lately.

No. 1-12

The entire Trump "klan" is the ultimate swamp.

E.E. Bokbok
E.E. Bokbok

Trump's statements on this meeting:

  1. "The meeting never happened".

-- then it was shown this is a lie --

  1. "It happened, but it was about adoptions" (working with Hope Hicks and Jr. to carefully craft a public statement).

-- then it was shown this is a lie --

  1. "It happen, and it was about using stolen Russian data, but there's nothing wrong with using stolen goods from a foreign enemy. And besides, I (Donald) never knew anything about it, it must be all my foolish son's idea".

-- The Republicans in the House still refuse to release Jr.'s phone records indicating who he called directly after the meeting.

Of course we're still waiting for the final bit of evidence to be presented, which is where the stolen information was used in the Trump campaign to win the election.

Right now, all we know is:

  1. The Russians definitely stole this information (and not just emails, campaign data which could be used to easily win the election).

  2. Russian definitely interfered in our election.

  3. Putin definitely wanted Trump to win.

  4. Manafort was definitely a Russian stooge.

  5. The Trump campaign definitely changed significant campaign ground tactics (based on data) in the months after the meeting.

Of course it could be that:

  1. Russia just threw that critical data they stole in the trash because they are honest and nice.

  2. Trump has acted ridiculously guilty in the last 18 months because... (actually I can't even come up with a lame excuse for this one).

Yeah, could be. For the rest of us who were not born yesterday, this is a stolen election pure and simple.


After reading Ms. Wright's blog and the ensuing comments to her post, I am reminded of a quote by Gertrude Stein, "There is no there there."

Despite Ms. Wright's near fanatical antipathy to all things Trump, what substantive item has emerged as evidence that anyone associated with the Trump campaign has violated law? Further, what law - specifically - has been violated?

Despite the NY Times and the WaPo tortured logic and their blending a dash of facts with an overwhelming amount of conjecture, innuendo and outright fabrication (outside of 'Washington Speak' the term is lying) all that has come to light is that various members of the Trump campaign met at the Trump Tower to meet with a Russian national by the name of Natalia Veselnitskaya.

Ms. Veselnitskaya stated purpose in requesting the meeting was to offer damaging information on HRC. When the meeting convened, Ms. Veselnitskaya's real purpose became clear - she wanted to discuss the Magnitsky Act (a bi-partisan bill passed in 2012 the purpose of which authorizes the US (and other countries) to sanction human rights offenders in Russia, freeze their foreign assets, and ban them from entering the signing country. The Magnitsky Act affected the prospects of foreigners to adopt Russian children.

There has yet to be any evidence Ms. Veselnitskaya offered any information on HRC nor has there been any evidence to substantiate a charge, alleged by Ms. Wright, that the Trump campaign 'conspired' with Putin to do anything.


Pretty sure @Susan_Wright that we've heard this song and dance before. Trump is always "rattled" and the wheels of the bus are always just about to come off.

Heh. For a quick round up of the last fourteen months:

On another note compared to the more Manchurian candidate type conspiracies you normally peddle in this seems kind of small and lackluster. One might almost get the sense its your side that's becoming unhinged, ever more desperate for some form of validation.


Keep up the good work Susan... Someone is going to jail... We just don't know who...