On Tuesday, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted screenshots of his email conversations regarding efforts to set up a meeting with a “Russian government attorney” in June 2016. His tweets came after The New York Times told him that it was about to publish an article detailing the contents of the emails. Trump Jr. declined to comment and instead tweeted a brief statement along with the screenshots, saying he was posting them “in order to be totally transparent.”

The emails show how Trump Jr. was approached by Rob Goldstone, a British publicist and former tabloid reporter, to set up a meeting. Goldstone represents the Russian pop star Emin Agalarov, the son of a Moscow real estate tycoon.

Here’s my statement and the full email chain pic.twitter.com/x050r5n5LQ

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) July 11, 2017

Agalarov’s father, Aras, and Donald Trump cooperated back in 2013 to bring the Miss Universe contest to Russia. Their families befriended each other, and the younger Agalarov featured Donald Trump in one of his music videos. The Agalarov family also has close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In the email to Trump Jr., Goldstone wrote that Emin Agalarov said that his father had met the “Crown prosecutor of Russia” and claimed to have damaging information on Hillary Clinton, which could be useful for his father’s presidential campaign. “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” Goldstone wrote. “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer,” was Trump Jr.’s reply.

After some back and forth, the meeting was set for June 9 in Trump Tower. Trump Jr. brought Paul Manafort, his father’s campaign chairman at the time, and Jared Kushner, his brother-in-law who remains a close advisor to his father, to the meet with the Russian attorney. Goldstone even checked in at Trump Tower on Facebook before the meeting.

You have to love that Rob Goldstone wrote an email saying the Russian gov wants to help beat Hillary and then checked in for the meeting pic.twitter.com/Ajg1NWHciA

— Josh Schwerin (@JoshSchwerin) July 11, 2017

What exactly happened at the meeting remains unclear. Trump Jr. claimed that the attorney, Natalia Veselnitskaya, only wanted to talk about adoption policies. The day after, when The New York Times contacted him again to say it was about to publish a second article, he changed his account.

Trump Jr. then said he only knew that he was meeting a woman who claimed to have information that would be helpful to his father’s campaign, but said he didn’t know her name beforehand. He also said that she didn’t have any valuable information after all.

A spokesperson for Vladimir Putin said that the Kremlin had no knowledge of the meeting and does he know Veselnitskaya.

On Tuesday morning, Veselnitskaya defended herself on NBC and said she never had any damaging information about Clinton. She denied having any ties to the Kremlin and said that the conversation with Trump Jr. was about the Magnitsky Act–a law that imposed sanctions on Russian officials who have committed human rights violations.

In retaliation for the law, the Kremlin stopped allowing the adoption of Russian children by American parents. Veselnitskaya is reportedly known for having well-connected clients and has aggressively lobbied against the Magnitsky Act in the past. According to Veselnitskaya, the Trump team may have wanted info on Clinton “so badly that they could only hear the thought that they wanted.”

No matter what was said at the meeting, and whether or not the information was useful, the emails show that Donald Trump Jr. was fully aware that he was meeting with someone who he was told was a representative of the Russian government, which also wanted to help to get his father elected.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Emails Show Trump Jr. Sought Information From Russian Government During Campaign appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Donald Trump Jr. Met With Russian Lawyer Who Offered Damaging Info on Clinton

Over the weekend, news broke that Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin, who promised him damaging information about Hillary Clinton during last year’s campaign. Donald Trump’s then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort also attended the meeting, as did Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. The meeting reportedly took place at Trump Tower on June 2016, only two weeks after Trump became the Republican nominee. Despite a long period of accusations and speculation of collusion with Russia, this is the first confirmed private meeting between people in Trump’s inner circle and someone connected to the Russian government.

So. We’ve learned unequivocally that Trump Jr. acted on behalf of the campaign and that they were willing to get materials from Russia.

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) July 10, 2017

It is unclear what exactly went down at the meeting. But when Trump Jr. was first asked about it, he said they mainly discussed adoptions of Russian children. When asked again, after the New York Times had published a second story, he changed his account and claimed that he met the lawyer after an acquaintance requested it, and that she claimed to have information that people with links to Russia were funding Clinton’s campaign. The information was “vague, ambiguous and made no sense,” Trump Jr. said. This morning, Moscow denied knowing anything about the meeting.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 10, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Today, President Donald Trump’s oldest son, Donald Trump Jr., appeared to enjoy a nice, relaxing day by the pool. The weather was beautiful outside, so Trump Jr.’s choice of venue makes sense. But his attire grabbed Twitter’s attention. Trump Jr. tweeted out a picture of himself wearing a t-shirt that poked a bit of fun at the “mainstream media”:

I’m going to have to buy 5-10,000 of these to pass around to our buddies in the #MSM. In the meantime I’ll model it for them. #yourewelcome pic.twitter.com/Hnn3Z5Pspm

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) April 15, 2017

And Twitter had quite a laugh editing and responding to the shirt. Check out some of the best responses in the slideshow below:

@rolandscahill @DonaldJTrumpJr Donald Jr describing himself as a model is very fake news.

— Mike P Williams (@Mike_P_Williams) April 15, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump Jr. Gets Mocked on Twitter for “Fake News” Shirt appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump Jr. decided early on not to measure himself against his father https://t.co/HXIxaRxHOV

— The New York Times (@nytimes) March 19, 2017

While Donald Sr. has shown he’s comfortable with stump speeches, Don Jr. seems very uncomfortable on his stump. Needless to say, Twitter latched on to the meme-ready image, mercilessly mocking him and his lumberjack attire.

@JordanFreiman noticed that Don Jr.’s sitting troubles go far beyond just stumps.

how is he so bad at sitting? pic.twitter.com/Jg7cTMfDcc

— Jordan Freiman (@JordanFreiman) March 18, 2017

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter Roasts Donald “Stump” Jr. With Viral Meme appeared first on Law Street.

There are few things more unsavory than manipulative gifts and bribes, especially when they are received by someone holding a public office. To protect against such foreign meddling and intrusion in American politics, the framers of the Constitution decided to embed language in the document strictly prohibiting such conduct. The Emoluments Clause was established to ensure the new government of America was insulated from corruption.

However, there is increasing concern among politicians and citizens that President-elect Donald Trump, with his vast corporation that has interests all over the world, will violate the Emoluments Clause when he steps into the office. Moreover, the President-elect will be in an extremely unique position; since he has not yet divested himself fully of his business holdings. He’s poised to make a profit as money comes into his privately-held corporation, the Trump Organization. Read on to learn more about the Emoluments Clause and these concerns.

What is the Emoluments Clause?

The framers of the Constitution were deeply afraid of foreign interference in the American political system, particularly after seeing its effects in Europe. Thus, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the Emoluments Clause, prohibits any person “holding any Office of Profit or Trust” from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” Additionally, it prohibits the federal government from bestowing titles of nobility. Explicit congressional consent has the ability to validate these particular exchanges, otherwise these payments are strictly prohibited. In 1787, America was still a brand-new government, one highly vulnerable to manipulation by world powers; thus, those who gathered to construct the Constitution wanted to break from the corrupt practices of previous governments.

Generally, America’s Founding Fathers were very cognizant of how private financial interests could potentially sway even the most moral of leaders. Historical evidence has even suggested that some of our Founding Fathers saw the Emoluments Clause as a broad anti-corruption measure. While the basis of the clause was to reject gifts that pertained specifically to diplomacy, it was also deemed a way to reject any corruption or foreign influence.

Emoluments is a broad term, but the construction of it is meant to be as broad as possible. So, an emolument is any transaction between a federal officeholder and a foreign state, in which the benefits are inconsistent with a fair market exchange in an arms-length transaction. There is not a firm consensus in the community regarding the definition of the term, but arguably emoluments could cover ordinary, fair market value transactions that result in economic profit or benefit to the federal officeholder.

Foreign Interference in the U.S. Political System

There is substantial evidence that a foreign power interfered in the American political system during the 2016 presidential election. According to many on Capitol Hill, the CIA, and the White House, Russia actively attempted to affect the outcome of the 2016 election. This was accomplished via the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and other political arms of the Democratic Party, resulting in the release of thousands of emails.

Strictly prohibiting foreign government presents and emoluments, of any kind, is even more important for national security purposes. Mitigating conflicts of interest with foreign governments is of the utmost importance as America ushers in a new administration in 2017.

Trump, Conflicts of Interest, and Foreign Entanglements

President-elect Trump has diverse business interests on a global scale. Even after Trump takes his oath of office on January 20, 2017, he will still continue to receive steady streams of income from a vast array of entities and foreign powers. Trump’s continued interest in the Trump Organization, as well as his stake in hundreds of other entities, make him arguably the most entangled president-elect in conflicts of interest in American history. As one political ethics and compliance lawyer in Washington noted, any sort of business with a foreign corporation, whether it is owned in part or completely controlled by a foreign government, that benefits Trump could be a violation of the Emoluments Clause.

In the domestic arena alone, there are over ten cases challenging Trump’s labor practices that are pending before the National Labor Relations Board, with two vacancies to be filled by Trump himself. Moreover, the Internal Revenue Service auditing Trump will soon pick its new chief. Trump will become both the landlord and tenant of the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., and he is now responsible for picking the new Treasury Secretary while owing several hundred million dollars to banks.

On the global scale, Trump has business holdings all over the world. While many transactions may not involve a bit of impropriety, it is still highly possible that they have the ability to cause blurred lines. Moreover, Trump has consistently declined to make his business dealings transparent, enshrouding the full extent of potential issues with his businesses in secrecy.

The full extent of his businesses, which include real estate, clothing, jewelry, golf courses, and much more, give rise to a variety of ethical considerations. When Ivanka Trump appeared on “60 Minutes” in November 2016, the business took advantage of a potential marketing opportunity by urging reporters to write about the $10,800 gold bangle bracelet she wore during the interview. Furthermore, Trump’s sons and their Texas nonprofit organization came under fire in December 2016 for soliciting million-dollar donations for unnamed “conservation” charities in exchange for access to Trump during inauguration weekend. Eric Trump stopped fundraising for his charity, which raised money for childhood cancer, after the foundation came under scrutiny for posting an online auction for coffee with Ivanka.

There are a lot of questions about how Trump’s businesses will function while he is in office. Currently, all Trump has identified is that he would leave his businesses before inauguration, leaving his children, Don and Eric, to manage them. He has also commented that no new deals will be done during his term(s) in office.

Does the Emoluments Clause Even Apply to the President?

Some scholars contend that the Emoluments Clause does not apply to the President. Many point out that there’s no real case law or precedent as to how courts could interpret the clause. But throughout American history, U.S. presidents have acted as though it does apply to them. There is evidence that at least one president, however, did not follow the Emoluments Clause. President George Washington, during his time in office, received gifts from both the French ambassador to the U.S. as well as the Marquis de Lafayette. Scholars also dispute whether the clause applies to a specific kind of payment, such as a gratuity or a gift, or if all types of payments are subject to the clause. Additionally, there is disagreement over whether the payment must be favorable or any fair market payment.

“Trump Vodka” Courtesy of Michael Lehet : License: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

The Congressional Research Service has also noted that the Emoluments Clause is one of a few ethics statutes that potentially apply to the president. However, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel specifically affirmed in 2009–when President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize–that the president holds an “Office of Profit or Trust.” Moreover, the Constitution explicitly refers to the president as holding an “Office.” A record going back even before the OLC and DOJ further shows a litany of government lawyers and previous presidents applying the clause to the presidency.

Trump, as a business man, is navigating in uncharted territory with his position in the Trump Organization. It is unprecedented that payments going to a corporation will eventually materialize as a profit for Trump. Since the business is a privately-held corporation, it is essentially an extension of Trump; conversely, if the Trump Organization were a publicly-held corporation, such questions would likely not arise even if potential conflicts of interest could still exist.

Potential Legislation to Force Trump to Divest His Empire

Some in Washington are extremely concerned about foreign influence and conflicts of interest in American politics because of Trump’s businesses. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has promised that she and four other Democratic senators will introduce a bill to implement and enforce the Emoluments Clause in January 2017. Such a bill, if passed, would force Trump to divest himself of his empire, placing his assets in a true blind trust.

A true blind trust would likely mean no involvement in his businesses from any of his family members, Don and Eric included. It would require a completely independent manager, not closely tied to the holder, to run the business. Presidents are certainly held to a higher standard than other Americans. Considering Trump’s platform was to root out corruption in Washington, his critics argue that divesting himself of the Trump Organization may be in the best interest for the country.

Conclusion

Despite these concerns, Trump has demonstrated no real intent to divest himself fully from his business interests once he steps into the White House. If the bill presented by Senator Warren and other supporters is passed, then Trump’s current plans may drastically change. One thing is quite clear: Trump, a billionaire with business holdings all over the globe, may find himself knee-deep in many conflicts of interest. Maintaining a presidency free from bribery, corruption, and self-motivated profits is absolutely critical, just as the Constitutional Convention intended.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Could the Emoluments Clause Affect Donald Trump? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Congressman Lee Zeldin Drags Kaepernick Into Terrorism Debate

People on Twitter are wondering why New York congressman Lee Zeldin thought it was appropriate to bring Colin Kaepernick into the whole New York, New Jersey bomber situation.

After the FBI apprehended Ahmad Khan Ramahi yesterday morning, Lee Zeldin posted this on Twitter:

Suspect in custody. You are welcome Colin Kaepernick.

— Lee Zeldin (@leezeldin) September 19, 2016

His tweet sparked some confused and disapproving responses:

@leezeldin If only Kaepernick had stood for the anthem these past two weeks, we could have caught the terrorist 3 hours sooner probably.

— Alex Katz (@Alex__Katz) September 19, 2016

1+1 = kumquat https://t.co/6psueTQz9r

— Shers (@aubrihshark) September 19, 2016

Just did my job that I get paid for. You’re welcome, Colin Kaepernick

— Margaret Don’t-@wood (@DavidUzumeri) September 19, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 20, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.