General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOpen Door to Moscow? New Facts in the Potential Criminal Case of Trump Campaign Coordination with Ru
Open Door to Moscow? New Facts in the Potential Criminal Case of Trump Campaign Coordination with Russia-Bob Bauer is President Obama's outside counsel. Bauer lays out why Don Jr/s contact with a Russian agent may be a crime. Here is one of two main theories that could land Don Jr. in prison https://www.justsecurity.org/42956/open-door-moscow-facts-potential-criminal-case-trump-campaign-coordination-russia/
A charge of illegal coordination is consistent with a conspiracy, aiding or abetting, or substantial assistance source of liability. It is the campaign finance law equivalent to what has been referred to in the public debate as collusion. In other words coordination is a legally prohibited form of collusion: spending by Russia, if coordinated with the campaign, is a contribution to the campaign. The contribution, of course, would be illegal. It is important to underscore here that this area of law applies to any and all coordinated spending beneficial to the campaign, not only to coordination with Russians, the Russian government, or other foreign nationals (think: Wikileaks).
Under the campaign finance laws, spending of all kinds to influence an election can be subject to a finding of coordination resulting in an illegal contribution. 52 U.S.C. §30116(a)(7)(B)(i); 11 C.F.R. §109.20. The coordination rules are designed to enforce contribution limits, by treating as a contribution an expenditure from any source in cooperation, consultation, or concert, with, or at the request or suggestion of a candidate or agent of the candidate. If R is the organization spending the money, and T is the candidate who is coordinating the spending with R, then T has received a contribution from R. The contribution must comply, like all other contributions, with source restrictions, dollar limits, and public reporting. (And under no circumstance may a candidate coordinate campaign spending, which includes any thing of value to influence an election, with a foreign national.)
There are special coordination rules that apply to expenditures for public communications, such as a groups spending coordinated with a candidate for television campaign advertising. 11 C.F.R. §109.21. There are also general coordination rules, which simply treat as a contribution any spending made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of a candidate.
A question clearly raised by the new information is whether the Trump campaigns communications about the hacked emailsthrough both public statements and private contactsconstituted in effect, for legal purposes, a request or suggestion that funds be spent to acquire the stolen emails. The candidate certainly requested this assistance in his public remarks. Now, in a meeting scheduled with a Russian national with ties to the Putin regime, the campaign made clear that it was actively interested in having this kind of information.
Investigators will presumably explore whether the campaign was interested specifically in the stolen emails. Press reporting suggests that a) the campaign was interested in the emails, because the candidate had said so, and supporters like Mr. Smith was engaged in a concerted effort to find them; and b) both the campaign and Mr. Smith were dealing with Russian nationals in the search for negative information on Mrs. Clinton. At any rate, any support coordinated with the Russians constitutes an illegal contribution from a foreign source.
It is critical to bear in mind that for campaign finance law purposes, a suggestion is just that: it need not for coordination purposes be a clearly articulated and documented request. In fact, the regulations of the FEC define a suggestion to include campaign assent to the offer of another, like the Russian government or its agents, to provide something of value to the campaign.
Consider, then, the view that Russians could reasonably take of the Trump campaigns wishes. The President stated publicly that he would like to have the Russians locate the stolen emails. Mr. Smith, indicating in various ways association with General Flynn, launches an initiative focused on finding these communications. A Russian national with government connections is able to schedule a meeting with the most senior circle of the campaign by pledging that she had negative information about Mrs. Clinton. In various ways, public and private, the campaign is making its interest clear, and, at a minimum, it is assenting to Russian plans to unearth information that constitutes a clear thing of value from a foreign source to influence an election.
Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)And besides; he's a privileged Republican! They never do jail time!
Gothmog
(143,999 posts)According to Bob Bauer, Don Jr. is in jeopardy
Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)Gothmog
(143,999 posts)Here is more from the article cited in the OP
https://www.justsecurity.org/42956/open-door-moscow-facts-potential-criminal-case-trump-campaign-coordination-russia/
To coordinate spending is to receive a contribution. It is also illegal to solicit a contribution or expenditureany thing of valuefrom a foreign national. 52 U.S.C. 30121(a)(2); 11 C.F.R. § 110.20 (g). A solicitation also need not be express: it can be implied. It is useful to consider the regulatory definition of solicitation adopted by the Federal Election Commission. I have put in italics key portions:
To solicit means to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation may be made directly or indirectly. The context includes the conduct of persons involved in the communication.
11 C.F.R. §300.2(m).
In sum a solicitation may be implied as well as express, and it is determined by examining all the relevant circumstances, including the context in which the communication in question is made. The President made an express appeal in public comments for Russian help, and the potential for finding an illegal contribution is reinforced by his repeated refusals to acknowledge or denounce the Russians for what the intelligence community formally found to be their program of interfering in the election. The freshly reported communications with Russian nationals add weight to the question of whether he and his campaign were really soliciting or just joking.
The Russians could reasonably understand that the campaign was very much in the market for this information. By suggesting that she had such information, a Russian national with a relationship to her government could obtain an audience with intimate associates of the candidate: his campaign manager, his son and his son-in-law. It would have been hard for the Russians to mistake the intensity of the campaigns interest. The very scheduling of the meetingand the status of the attendeeswas sufficient to get the campaigns point across about what it highly valued and was prepared to take from a foreign source. And if they had any doubt, it would have been resolved by the Presidents public call, a little six weeks later, for the Russians, if youre listening, to find the emails.
It also bears emphasis that a solicitation need not be successful in order to be illegal. The law applied here is not about an attempt, inchoate or otherwise, to commit a federal offencethe very solicitation is itself a potential crime.
Gothmog
(143,999 posts)Here is another description of Bauer's legal research https://politicalwire.com/2017/07/10/criminal-case-donald-trump-jr/
Bob Bauer: There is much more to know in evaluating the case that Mr. Trump and his campaign committed campaign finance violations in soliciting and receiving support from Russia, and assisting the Russians in their plan to influence the 2016 presidential election. There is now little doubt that there is such a case.
What is becoming increasingly clear is that Mr. Trump and his campaign were open to whatever help the Russians would provide: they made that clear to the Russians, and took specific actions to invite and receive this foreign national assistance. In response to the latest disclosure of Russian contacts, the campaigns defense seems to be that it never checked whether the people from whom they were soliciting stolen emails and other negative information were Russians, much less connected to the Kremlin. That may beggar belief; some may even find the claim perversely amusing. But under campaign finance law, it is no joke.
Me.
(35,454 posts)K & R