Oh Dear – Trail of Russian Dossier Origination Now Directly Leads to The Obama White House….

Has Trump Jr. been charged? No, I don't think so. While many pundits and legal scholars have articulated your argument, most of them agree there is no precedent under campaign finance laws stipulating 'thing of value' refers to anything other than money. Further, ignorance of the law IS a valid defense for breaking FECA campaign laws.

"Most of FECA’s prohibitions, including those related to contributions/donations from foreign nationals, create criminal consequences only when a person “knowingly and willfully” commits a violation of the statute.*** See 52 U.S.C. 30109(d)(1)(A)." In other words, mens rea. Good luck proving that!

This is why the majority of reputable media outlets are reporting, Trump Jr. 'may' have broken the law. They are trying to get clicks and many people are happy to oblige.

http://yalejreg.com/nc/if-trump-jr-didnt-know-campaign-finance-law-he-didnt-break-it/

CPO (Join to see) - The burden of proof here is that something of value was received and your opinion or my opinion does not release this burden of proof in a court of law. You maybe able to file charges based on this however an indictment does not release the burden of proof required.

CMSgt (Join to see) - As I read it the "knowing and willful violation" is not required under 52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(5)(A).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30109

And then there is: 52 U.S.C. 30109(d)(2) In any criminal action brought for a violation of any provision of this Act ..., any defendant may evidence their lack of knowledge or intent to commit the alleged violation by introducing as evidence a conciliation agreement entered into between the defendant and the Commission under subsection (a)(4)(A) which specifically deals with the act or failure to act constituting such violation and which is still in effect.

So basically a defendant can claim ignorance of law when admitting they did what they did that violated the Act... No "knowing and willful violation" required...

Then the Ninth Circuit says: “‘willfully’ in this [FECA] statute means that the ‘[g]overnment must prove that [the defendant] intended to violate the law (whatever the law was); but it need not prove awareness of the specific law’s commands’”

I can't find the citation but I believe the courts held that labor was a "thing of value", so its not just money.

But like all legal dramas, one side tries to prove the defendant guilty while the other side tries to prove him innocent. chung-chung <Law & Order sound effect> Some work to build the case and some work to dismiss the case.

However, here is a key from your cited article: "although the DOJ Manual does not create binding law, it will likely control any prosecution decisions by the DOJ, including by Special Counsel Robert Mueller."

But "He Won’t Be Prosecuted" is not the same as it wasn't a violation of law. So then, what about the conspiracy charge?

MAJ Byron Oyler - So you're saying that in order to be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, the murder has to occur? No. Conviction does not require commission of the crime that was the object of the conspiracy.

Maybe we should read the articke, then follow all the links before coming to a conclusion.

SSG Diane R. - I did, and that was my conclusion.

And nothing that would hold up in court.