Showing posts with label "thing of value". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "thing of value". Show all posts

Sunday, September 26, 2021

The Myths about the Mueller report that just won't die

 Although this essay dispelling myths about the Mueller report was published in TIME magazine on July 8, 2019, the myths they dispel are timeless in terms of setting the record straight. Regarding the authors: Barbara McQuade is a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and a former U.S Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. Joyce White Vance is a distinguished professor at the University of Alabama School of Law and former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.

In this view essay, eight myths will be covered in several postings, starting with the two authors lead-in. 

"When we testified before the House Judiciary Committee in June [2019] regarding lessons from former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, it became apparent from the questioning that misconceptions about Mueller's findings still exist. The narrative was shaped by Attorney General William Barr, who issued his description of Mueller's conclusions more than three weeks before the public saw the full 448-page report. In a letter to Barr, Mueller complained that Barr's summary 'did not capture the context, nature and substance' of his team's work and created 'public confusion.' Mueller will testify before Congress on July 17. In the meantime, here is our effort to dispel some of the most persistent myths."

Myth 1. Mueller found "no collusion."

"RESPONSE: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing 'numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.' He found that 'a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump.' He also found that 'a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations' against the Hillary Clinton campaign and released stolen documents He wrote that the 'investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.' 

To find conspiracy, a prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime: an agreement between at least two people to commit a criminal offense and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals at Trump Tower in June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of 'Russia and its government's support for  Mr. Trump,' according to an email arranging the meeting. The meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish willfulness,' that is, that the participants knew their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a 'thing of value' exceeding $25,000, the amount that makes a campaign-finance violation a felony.

Mueller found other contacts with Russia such as the sharing of polling data about states where Trump later won upset victories and attempts to influence Russia's response to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government for election interference. While none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy, all could be described as 'collusion.' 

Myth 2. Mueller found no obstruction.

RESPONSE: Mueller found a least four acts by Trump in which all elements of the obstruction statute were satisfied -- attempting to fire Mueller, directing White House counsel Don McGahn to lie and create a false document about efforts to fire Mueller, attempting to limit the investigation to future elections and attempting to prevent Manafort from cooperating with the government. 'As Mueller stated, 'while this report dos not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.' Following the Department of Justice policy that a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime, Mueller did not attempt to reach a legal conclusion about the facts. Instead he undertook to 'preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available,' because a President can be charged after he leaves office. In fact, Mueller thought it would be improper to even accuse Trump of committing a crime so as not to 'preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct, meaning impeachment.

Wednesday, December 18, 2019

Trump: a Serial Abuser of Campaign Finance Law

There is a fear that finding President Trump not guilty of abuse of power in the U.S. Senate will cause him to revert to and possibly even expand on the abuses of power he has displayed in the past. In the area of campaign finance law, Trump has already displayed a pattern of illegal behavior.

Leaving aside the payment of "hush" money, in which either Stormy Daniels or Karen McDougal could have derailed Donald Trump's presidential campaign in its latter stages by revealing their respective relationships with him, the pattern of violating campaign finance law began with Trump's televised appeal to the Russian government that if it is listening, please try to find Hillary Clinton's missing 30,000 emails, and the media would appreciate it. Trump's pattern of violating campaign finance law continued when he tried to justify the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting, attended by three top campaign officials, that "everybody" would have taken the meeting; also, he described getting "dirt" on Hillary Clinton as legitimate "opo (opposition) research."

The pattern continued when in an Oval Office interview with George Stephanopolos, President Trump said that if he had information that a foreign entity had negative information about a political rival, he would take a call and then decide if he would report the call to the FBI or some other  governmental entity. Knowing Trump's practice of seeking advantage of a political opponent by any means necessary, if one foreign entity had a dump truck load of dirt, and another had only a thimble's full, which call would Trump be most likely to report? Hint: it would not be the dump truck load of dirt.

Finally, coming to Trump's public request to China to investigate the Bidens because Hunter Biden served on the board of a Chinese company, and the demand made to Ukraine to link investigations to a White House visit, and the release of military aid/security assistance to the 2016 presidential election, these are further indications of Trump's lack of respect for campaign finance law. This linkage is bribery under 18 U.S.C. 201 (b), a quid pro quo as referenced in that statute, and a violation of campaign finance law by exchanging an action of a foreign entity, investigations of the Bidens and Ukraine's possible meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, with a "thing of value," dirtying up a potential 2020 election political opponent, Joe Biden.