WHITE HOUSE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FOCUSED ON HEALTH CARE. INSTEAD IT’S ALL ABOUT RUSSIA AND RUSSIAN MEDDLING IN THE 2016 ELECTION. THE PRESIDENT’S SON, DONALD TRUMP JR. IS NOW SQUARELY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CONTROVERSY — HAVING RELEASED EMAILS ABOUT A MEETING HE HAD IN JUNE OF 2016 WITH A RUSSIAN LAWYER OFFERING INCRIMINATING INFORMATION ON HILLARY CLINTON. TRUMP JUNIOR PUSHED OUT THE EMAILS IN A SERIES OF TWEETS SHORTLY BEFORE THE NEW YORK TIMES WAS READY TO MAKE THEM PUBLIC. IN THE WAKE OF THE REVELATIONS, LEGAL EXPERTS HAVE BEEN WEIGHING ON TREASON, CONSPIRACY, AND COLLUSION. WHAT DO THOSE WORDS MEAN AND DO ANY OF THEM APPLY TO WHAT WE HEARD THIS WEEK? HERE TO WAL LEGAL JARGON AND THE QUESTIONS OF LAW — KATHLEEN CLARK — A LAW PROFESSOR AT WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, SPECIALIZING IN GOVERNMENT ETHICS, LEGAL ETHICS, AND CAMPAIGN LAW. NICE TO HAVE YOU. MS. CLARK: THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. SOLEDAD: SO EVERYONE WHO EVER WANTED TO BE A LAWYER, IS A LAWYER OR WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THE LAW HAS BEEN DIGGING INTO ALL THE NUANCE OF THIS CASE ESPECIALLY AROUND THE RELEASE OF EMAILS. THE WORDS THEY ARE USING ARE WORDS LIKE COLLUSION, TREASON AND CONSPIRACY. SO I WOULD LIKE TO START THERE, JUST WITH DEFINITIONS. WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF COLLUSION? MS. CLARK: COLLUSION IS NOT A LEGAL TERM AT ALL. WE HAVE BEEN TOSSING AROUND THAT TERM FOR MONTHS NOW AND I THINK IT IS A USEFUL SUMMARY OF PEOPLE OR ORGANIZATIONS WORKING TOGETHER TOWARD A COMMON GOA BUT THAT IS NOT ACTUALLY A LEGAL TERM THERE ARE OTHER LEGAL TERMS THAT ARE RELEVANT HERE INCLUDING CONSPIRACY AND AIDING AND ABETTING AND THESE ARE TERMS THAT ARE RELEVANT AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF OUR CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS THAT PROHIBIT FOREIGNERS FROM CONTRIBUTING, MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS OR PROVIDING ANYTHING OF VALUE TO U.S. CAMPAIGN. SOLEDAD: PART OF WHAT SEEMS TO PLAY A ROLE IS THE ROLE OF SOLICITATION. WHEN DONALD JUNIOR RESPONDED ” LOVE IT” TO WHAT WAS BEING PITCHED TO HIM BY THE PUBLICIST AND THERE’RE MAY HAVE BEEN PHONE CALL OR NOT, IT IS HARD TO TELL AT THIS MOMENT. DOES THAT COUNT AS SOLICITATION? MS. CLARK: SO SOLICITATION DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY KIND OF MAGIC WORDS TO BE SAID. I THINK THAT THE EMAIL EXCHANGE IS SUGGESTIVE THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOLICITATION. I DON’T THINK THERE IS SLAM DK EVIDENCE AT THIS POINT THAT DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR ENGAGED IN SOLICITATION, I THINK OF THE MEETING AS EVIDENCE. THE FACT THAT THEY AGREED TO GO TO THE MEETING AND THE INFO THAT THEY HAD ABOUT THE MEETING, WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING WAS, AS POSSIBLE EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE FACILITATING A FOREIGN PROVISION OF SOMETHING OF VALUE TO THE CAMPAIGN. BUT I WOULDN’T CALL THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE MEETING ILLEGAL AS SUCH OR A CRIME AS SUCH. THERE IS NOT A PROHIBITION ON AMERICANS MEETING WITH RUSSIANS OR ANY FOREIGNERS. SO IF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP HAD BEEN PART OF AN AGREEMENT, IF HE AGREED TO TAKE ACTION TO FURTHER THE RUSSIANS’ PROVISION OF SOMETHING OF VALUE TO THE CAMPAIGN THEN HE HIMSELF COULD , FACE CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE ELECTION LAW. SOLEDAD: CAN YOU PROSECUTE A SITTING PRESIDEN>>WELL THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ASSERTS THAT YOU CAN’T, BUT I QUESTION. AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, HOWEVER. IT SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS WOULD WANT TO BE ANY PART OF THAT, BUT O COURSE HE HAS SAID HE WOULD RECUSE FROM THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION SO IT MAY NOT BE UP TO HIM. INSTEAD IT WOULD BE PRESUMABLY UP TO SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER, BUT THE REGULATION UNDER WHICH HE WAS APPOINTED REQUIRES HIM TO ABIDE BY JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICIES AND WHILE I BELIEVE I MAY BE POSSIBLE TO INDICT A PRESIDENT I DON’T THINK THIS