Despite intense debate about the scope of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, there is broad agreement that "collusion" with the Russian government is at the heart of it. Yet that term, which is used on a daily basis on cable news, has no legal meaning. Mueller's recent moves—from subpoenaing Paul Manafort’s financial records to working with a Ukrainian hacker—make more sense if you understand how working with the Russians can be a crime. As a legal matter, what’s significant is whether an American "conspired" with a representative of the Russian government. Conspiracy is just a legal term that means an agreement to commit a crime. An American can also commit a crime by "aiding and abetting" a criminal act committed by someone else. That means that the American knew of the criminal activity and helped make it succeed. It is also a federal crime to actively conceal a felony, even after the crime has already been committed. The common thread underlying all of these things is that the American has to know that a crime has been committed and somehow assist in committing or concealing it. Merely working with the Russians, receiving aid from the Russians or meeting with the Russians is not enough. http://www.newsweek.com/russia-collusion-trump-putin-moscow-kremlin-manafort-kushner-mueller-654216
So what underlying crime could Mueller be investigating? One obvious possibility is hacking the Democratic National Committee and subsequently releasing emails from it via WikiLeaks. Hacking U.S. servers is a crime that is frequently investigated and prosecuted—I handled some of those cases myself. Anyone who agreed to take part in an effort to hack the DNC's servers committed a crime. An American could join a Russian conspiracy to hack U.S. servers without ever speaking to the hackers, as long as they knew about the criminal activity and agreed to play a role in it. Conspirators don't have to know everyone or everything involved a plot—once you join a conspiracy, you're "all in" and are liable for all foreseeable acts of the other conspirators. For example, an American who knew about a hacking operation and agreed to distribute or use stolen material could join a conspiracy without knowing the hackers or how the hacking took place. That person could also be charged with abetting the hacking if distributing the stolen material aided in the crime. That explains why a recent New York Times report that a Ukrainian hacker is helping the FBI with the Russia probe could be important. In order to charge anyone with a crime connected with the Russian hacking, Mueller will first need to prove that the hacking occurred. The testimony of the hacker could establish that the crime occurred, who was responsible for it and how it happened. http://www.newsweek.com/russia-collusion-trump-putin-moscow-kremlin-manafort-kushner-mueller-654216
The more difficult thing for Mueller to prove is whether an American knowingly joined a Russian criminal conspiracy or aided in one. That's why recent reports that Mueller is focused on Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer is unsurprising, given the emails Trump Jr. released establish that he knew Moscow wanted to help his father's campaign and he welcomed the assistance. As I told The New York Times, that email string is not sufficient to prove that Trump Jr. joined a conspiracy. Again, Mueller needs to prove that Trump Jr. helped commit a crime or agreed to do so. There are other unrelated criminal acts that Mueller could seek to prove in relation to that meeting. For example, it is a federal crime to receive material that you know is stolen, as long as it is worth over $5,000 and it crosses state or international boundaries before you receive it. It is also a crime to offer to trade an official act, like reducing sanctions, in exchange for something of value. http://www.newsweek.com/russia-collusion-trump-putin-moscow-kremlin-manafort-kushner-mueller-654216
Another crime: receiving a "contribution" from a foreign national. But as I told The Daily Beast, violating federal campaign law is not a crime unless it is done "knowingly" and "willfully." That could be difficult to prove in the case of Trump Jr., although perhaps not for Manafort, who has a lot of campaign experience. Indeed, Mueller could establish Manafort's state of mind regarding meetings with the Russians. As The Washington Post reported, the GOP operative rejected potential meetings with Moscow in emails that he sent before the Trump Jr. incident. In those emails, retired Admiral Charles Kubic raised concerns that a meeting could expose attendees to legal liability. A juror could conclude that such a correspondence show that Manafort was aware of the legal risks associated with the Trump Jr. meeting before he attended it. Expect Mueller to interview everyone who attended the meeting and review all communications surrounding it. His primary purpose would be to understand what, if anything, came from it and whether there were subsequent and related talks between the Trump campaign and people who claim to represent the Russian government. One thing we can be sure about is that Mueller's inquiry will last many months. The recent suggestion by White House special counsel Ty Cobb that it should wrap up by Thanksgiving is disingenuous. Any lawyer with extensive experience with federal criminal investigations—and Cobb does—knows that a complex probe like this one could take years to complete. Renato Mariotti was a federal prosecutor in Chicago for over nine years, prosecuting many complex financial crimes and obstruction of justice cases. http://www.newsweek.com/russia-collusion-trump-putin-moscow-kremlin-manafort-kushner-mueller-654216
Mueller Uses Classic Prosecution Playbook Despite Trump Warnings The former FBI director leading the probe into the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia is taking a page from the playbook federal prosecutors have used for decades in criminal investigations, from white-collar fraud to mob racketeering: Follow the money. Start small and work up. See who will “flip” and testify against higher-ups by pursuing charges such as tax evasion, money laundering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Special counsel Robert Mueller -- himself a veteran prosecutor -- has assembled a team of 16 lawyers experienced in complex criminal cases for his investigation into Russian meddling in last year’s presidential campaign. They even staged a dramatic early morning raid in late July on the home of President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort -- a classic shock-and-awe tactic reminiscent of raids the FBI used against four hedge funds in an insider-trading probe in 2010 and earlier against mobsters like John Gotti, head of the Gambino crime family in New York. “You’re always looking for people on the inside to testify about what goes on,” said Jeffrey Cramer, a former prosecutor who’s now managing director of consulting firm Berkeley Research Group LLC. "You go for the weakest link, and you start building up." Trump’s Red Line Mueller was given a broad mandate in May by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to investigate not only Russia’s interference and potential collusion with Trump’s presidential campaign but also “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” Now, the expanding investigation risks a showdown with Trump, who has warned that looking into his family’s real estate deals would cross a red line. While Trump’s legal team doesn’t anticipate that Mueller will violate his mandate, it’s prepared to take action if he does, Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s lawyers, said in an interview. Matters that would be out of bounds include looking at Trump’s taxes or real-estate transactions of the president or his family members, Sekulow said. “If we felt there was an issue that developed that was outside the scope of legitimate inquiry we would, in normal course, file our objections with the special counsel," Sekulow said. “If we weren’t satisfied with the resolution we would look at going through the appropriate channels at the Department of Justice." People ‘Speculating’ Sekulow also said it’s “fundamentally incorrect” to assume that Mueller is conducting a mob-style investigation when it comes to Trump and his family members, at least based on what he’s seen to date. "People are speculating on things without a full grasp of the nature of what’s taking place," he said. Rosenstein said on “Fox News Sunday” this month that “we don’t engage in fishing expeditions” and Mueller needs to come to him for approval to investigate any potential crimes beyond his mandate. Mueller and Rosenstein declined to comment for this story, according to their aides. Those who have worked with Mueller said he knows how to build a case piece-by-piece. "Mueller is no dummy," said William Mateja, a former federal prosecutor who investigated white-collar crime and served at the Justice Department when Mueller was director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. "You use crimes like money laundering and tax evasion to get cooperation from people who might be in the know." Among the experienced prosecutors he’s recruited in that effort is Andrew Weissmann, who worked in the 1990s to dismantle crime families on racketeering charges. He squeezed lower-level mobsters to become cooperating witnesses, a tactic that eventually led to the conviction of Genovese crime boss Vincent "The Chin" Gigante for racketeering in 1997. Later, Weissmann led the Enron Task Force that investigated and prosecute cases involving the defunct Houston energy trader. Greg Andres, another team member, is a former deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s criminal division who took down Bonanno family boss Joseph Massino. He also prosecuted former Credit Suisse Group AG broker Eric Butler for securities fraud. Butler was convicted in 2009. To be sure, Mueller’s team is using 21st century technology to investigate last year’s hacking into Democratic Party computers and moves to “weaponize” social media to influence voters. But it’s also using time-tested methods, casting a wide net to find out "who are the true power players" with knowledge of what was happening in Trump’s campaign and during his transition to the White House, said Ronald Hosko, former assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division. "The core part of Robert Mueller’s mission is to understand whether people associated with the campaign were associated with Russians determined to influence the election results," said Hosko, who’s now president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund. Trump Buildings The investigation is examining Russian purchases of apartments in Trump buildings, Trump’s involvement in a controversial New York hotel development with Russian associates and Trump’s sale of a Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008, Bloomberg News reported last month. Sekulow said he hasn’t seen any evidence the investigation is looking into Trump’s real-estate transactions. Trump associates who are central figures in Mueller’s investigation include Manafort, the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn, who was ousted as national security adviser, according to two U.S. officials with knowledge of the investigation. Mueller is now in talks with the White House to interview current and former administration officials, including recently departed White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, the New York Times reported. "They’re looking at where are various people getting money from, and they’re going to try to figure out not only where did it come from, but who can they connect it to," said Mateja, now a shareholder at the law firm of Polsinelli PC. "Can they connect it to Donald Trump?" What’s not known publicly yet is whether any of those under investigation are cooperating to help Mueller build a case, Hosko said. Pressure to Act Mueller’s investigation is likely to continue through next year if not longer, increasing pressure on him to announce indictments against those who committed relatively small offenses and who aren’t needed to further the investigation, according to Hosko. “The longer it drags out, the louder the complaints will get that there’s nothing that’s been proven,” he said. The July raid on the home of Manafort, whose financial dealings and previous work for a Russian-backed party in Ukraine have come under scrutiny, was seen as an effort to get him to give up any damaging information he might have on Trump or others. Manafort changed lawyers after the raid, announcing he would hire Miller & Chevalier, which specializes in international tax law and fraud. The move was made because Mueller’s investigation of Manafort appears to be moving beyond collusion with Russia to focus on potential tax violations, said a person familiar with the matter. John Dowd, another Trump lawyer, called the raid a "gross abuse of the judicial process" for the sake of "shock value" -- another indication that the Trump team is chafing increasingly at Mueller’s hard-charging approach. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...c-prosecution-playbook-despite-trump-warnings
Yes, opinion. Funny how you didn't mark the two opinion articles you posted today. DennyAnne DoubleStandard
I read that last one already. It's hard to believe that some condo deal in 2008 had anything to do with the 2016 election. That's a stretch at best.
Your opinion piece contains a lot of facts. That it's an opinion piece doesn't mean the facts are somehow opinion. "Yet that term, which is used on a daily basis on cable news, has no legal meaning." Some of us can tell the difference.
