Quantcast
Connect with us

Legal expert argues Mueller actually showed ‘illegal coordination and conspiracy’ between Russia and Trump’s campaign

Published

on

n a new op-ed for the New York Times, Fordham University Law Professor Jed Shugerman argued that, despite the headline conclusions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Russia investigation, the evidence shows there really was illegal conspiracy and coordination between the Trump campaign and the hostile foreign power.

It’s a surprising and bold conclusion because Mueller’s report clearly says the opposite. Despite hundreds of pages of evidence, none of it, Mueller said, established that the Trump campaign “conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

ADVERTISEMENT

So how does Shugerman reach his conclusion? He makes two clever analytical moves. First, he points to Mueller’s implicit standard of evidence: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As a prosecutor who would be called upon to demonstrate his conclusions in a court of law, the former FBI director held himself to a rigorous standard for his claims: just below certainty.

But Mueller did not even suggest that there was a conspiracy. We know he was willing to discuss possible charges in the report because he weighed the idea of charging Donald Trump Jr. of a campaign finance crime in soliciting election help from Russians, before declining to bring such a charge for several solid reasons. He never gets even this far with a conspiracy case.

That’s where Shugerman’s second analytical move comes in, arguing that Mueller’s standards for assessing conspiracy and coordination may have been too stringent:

Even without knowing what is redacted, the report offers “substantial and credible information” of the Trump campaign conspiring or coordinating with the Russian government. Under federal criminal law, “conspiracy” does not require direct proof or explicit words of agreement. It can be proven by action and circumstantial evidence from which the agreement may be inferred. And on campaign “coordination,” the Mueller report made a significant omission or oversight on this question when it stated that “‘coordination’ does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement — tacit or express.”

As the election law expert Paul Seamus Ryan noted, Congress in its 2002 campaign finance law rejected that view: Federal law “shall not require agreement or formal collaboration to establish coordination.” The federal regulations followed this command: “Coordinated means made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate,” with no need to show any kind of agreement. Expenditures for coordinated communications are considered in-kind contributions, and foreign contributions — public or private — are illegal.

With these less demanding interpretations of the charges, Shugerman argues that at least three events from the Mueller report could be seen as evidence of conspiracy and coordination: Campaign Chair Paul Manafort’s sending of internal polling data to a man believed to be a Russian spy; Roger Stone’s interactions with WikiLeaks, which could directly implicate Trump (though much of these sections are redacted); and Donald Trump Jr.’s communications with WikiLeaks.

ADVERTISEMENT

“This conduct by President Trump, his son and his campaign manager and deputy campaign manager are probably civil violations of coordination for enforcement by the F.E.C.,” Shugerman argued.

While the evidence isn’t firm enough to reach a conclusion “beyond a reasonable doubt,” it does rise to the level of proof “by a preponderance of the evidence,” wrote Shugerman. This is an acceptable standard for civil violations not punishable by prison time.

Why does all this matter? Shugerman said that it could be relevant to impeachment. Congress gets to decide what counts as a “high crime or misdemeanor” — and there’s no reason these acts couldn’t qualify. Congress also gets to decide what standard of proof it needs. There’s no reason to insist on knowing “beyond a reasonable doubt” when the integrity of the presidency is involved.

ADVERTISEMENT

But I think Shugerman’s strongest argument is actually on obstruction. As I have argued previously, Trump’s obstruction of justice may have indeed blocked the investigation from obtaining vital evidence in the Russia case. We likely will never know — but that’s exactly why it’s important to treat obstruction of justice just as seriously as we would other crimes. By the nature of the crime, it can make it impossible to know if other grievous infractions are being covered up.

ADVERTISEMENT

Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

George Conway reveals Trump is being shunned by law firms because young lawyers ‘want nothing to do with him’

Published

on

Conservative attorney George Conway asserted in a column over the weekend that President Donald Trump's history of mistreating law firms is catching up with him.

In a Sunday op-ed for The Washington Post, Conway explains that Trump is now faced with sparse choices for legal representation in his impeachment trial after years of not paying attorneys and generally being a bad client.

Pointing to Trump's choice of Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, Conway writes:

?The president has consistently encountered difficulty in hiring good lawyers to defend him. In 2017, after Robert S. Mueller III became special counsel, Trump couldn’t find a high-end law firm that would take him as a client. His reputation for nonpayment preceded him: One major Manhattan firm I know had once been forced to eat bills for millions in bond work it once did for Trump. No doubt other members of the legal community knew of other examples.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Texas GOPer Cornyn blames Trump’s problems on campaign ‘grifters’ — then calls Giuliani ‘not relevant’

Published

on

Appearing on CBS's “Face the Nation," Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) attempted to blame Donald Trump's impeachment problems on "grifters" who found a way to attach themselves to the now-president when he began to run for president.

Speaking with host Margaret Brennan, Cornyn was asked about allegations made by Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas that have implicated not only the president but Vice President Mike Pence and senior White House officials in an attempt to strongarm the leaders of Ukraine in return for military aid.

"Doesn't it trouble you that [Parnas] was working so closely with Rudy Giuliani, who was acting on the president's behalf and saying he was acting on the president's behalf?" host Brennan asked. "

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

‘No sound basis’: Georgetown law professor explains why Alan Dershowitz will crumble under Senate questioning

Published

on

Georgetown law professor John Mikhail suggested on Sunday that the portion of President Donald Trump's defense which is being covered by Alan Dershowitz to fail because it has "no sound basis" in history and law.

"There is no sound basis for Alan Dershowitz to claim that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. In addition to being at odds with common sense, this claim is contradicted by a clear and consistent body of historical evidence," Mikhail stated.

The law professor cited the impeachment of Warren Hastings in the 1780s.

"Some of the best evidence comes from the case of Warren Hastings, which informed the drafting Art. II, Sec 4," Mikhail wrote. "The fact that he was not guilty of treason, but still deserved to be impeached, was a major reason 'other high crimes and misdemeanors' was added to the Constitution."

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image