Writing for the New Yorker yesterday, Jeffrey Toobin explored the notion that collusion with a foreign government to steal the U.S. presidency is a crime or not. Wasn’t it conspiracy? “Is collusion a crime? That is one of the central questions of the investigation into Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections. Even if it could be proved that Donald Trump and his supporters worked with the Russian government, or with Russian citizens, to win the Presidential race, would that activity have violated United States law? It’s long been an article of faith for Trump supporters, and for Trump himself, that collusion is not illegal. As the President told the Times in an interview last December, ‘There is no collusion, and even if there was, it’s not a crime.' Now, it appears, Trump’s own Justice Department may have a different view. That conclusion appears in a document released earlier this week, in the course of pre-trial litigation in the case of Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, on charges including money laundering. Lawyers for Manafort, who has pleaded not guilty to the charges, asked that they be dismissed on the grounds that Robert Mueller, the special counsel, did not have the right to bring them; Manafort’s lawyers assert that the case—which centers on work that Manafort did for the pro-Russia government of Ukraine—was outside Mueller’s jurisdiction.” Yesterday, the judge just about laughed in his face and threw out Manafort’s case entirely.
Mueller… makes clear that he has the authority to investigate obstruction of justice--including obstruction of his own investigation. This, too, is a crucial disclosure. But, if collusion is a crime, what crime is it? What criminal statutes forbid collusion? In an article for the New Yorker in December, I explored this subject, and raised several possibilities, including conspiracy to solicit illegal campaign contributions and conspiracy to engage in illegal computer hacking. But Mueller’s subsequent actions give a hint of his own interpretation of the subject. In February, he obtained an indictment of thirteen Russian citizens and three Russian entities for using social media to help Trump win the election. The key charge in the case… is called conspiracy to defraud the United States.…This case, of course, only deals with Russian defendants. But if Mueller were able to prove that Americans worked with the Russians in this kind of endeavor-- that is, if he can prove that Americans colluded with the Russians-- then he could bring a similar charge against them. On Tuesday night, the Washington Post reported that the President himself remains a subject of the special counsel’s investigation, meaning that his conduct is being scrutinized, but that no decision has been made about whether charges will be brought against him.Nevertheless, Mueller now has the authority, and the legal theory, to bring criminal charges for collusion. The unanswered question is whether he has American defendants, too.
Reuters reported that “A federal judge tore into all of the legal arguments that a lawyer for President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort made on Wednesday in his long-shot civil case to convince her that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has run amok and should be reined in. ‘I don’t really understand what is left of your case,’ U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson said to Kevin Downing, Manafort’s attorney, after peppering him with a lengthy series of questions.”By nighttime yesterday, CNN was running with an exclusive about Mueller’s team questioning unnamed Russian oligarchs with strong connections to Putin. Both had traveled to the U.S. and Mueller had one stopped at the private airport where he landed his private jet too search his computer and cell phone. The point: Investigators are asking whether wealthy Russians illegally funneled cash donations directly or indirectly into Donald Trump's presidential campaign and inauguration.” The idea of “indirectly” certainly includes the NRA, which helped money-launder millions of dollars from the Kremlin into the Trump campaign.
The approach to Russian oligarchs in recent weeks may reflect that Mueller's team has already obtained records or documents that it has legal jurisdiction over and can get easily, one source said, and now it's a "wish list" to see what other information they can obtain from Russians entering the US or through their voluntary cooperation.Foreign nationals are prohibited under campaign finance laws from donating to US political campaigns.The sources did not share the names of the oligarchs but did describe the details of their interactions with the special counsel's team.One area under scrutiny, sources say, is investments Russians made in companies or think tanks that have political action committees that donated to the campaign.Another theory Mueller's office is pursuing, sources said, is whether wealthy Russians used straw donors-- Americans with citizenship-- as a vessel through which they could pump money into the campaign and inauguration fund.