Tag Archives: Election

The Consequences of Pardoning Manafort

18 Saturday Aug 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today marked the second day of jury deliberations for the trial of Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager. Manafort is being tried for 18 criminal charges for bank and tax fraud related to the time he spent working for a Ukrainian political party. Manafort refused to cooperate with the Mueller investigation, and it has been theorized that this decision was based on a belief that President Trump would pardon him if he were convicted.

Whether Trump will pardon Manafort is unknown; however he has used his pardon power politically in the past, and his former lawyer, John Down, apparently broached the subject of a possible pardon with Manafort’s lawyers. When asked whether he would consider pardoning Manafort, the President refused to say, but did comment that  “the whole . . .  trial is very sad.”

In an article written for the American Constitutional Society, entitled Why President Trump Can’t Pardon His Way Out of the Special Counsel and Cohen Investigations, Noah Bookbinder, Norman Eisen, Caroline Fredrickson, and Conor Shaw write that “a prospective pardon of a witness in the Russia investigation might . . . constitute an obstruction of a criminal investigation . . . .” They are referring to section 1510 of title 18 of the the United States Code, which makes the “[willful endeavoring], by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator” a federal crime. If President Trump did, directly or indirectly, promise Manafort a pardon in exchange for his refusal to cooperate with Mueller, then he may not only be subject to criminal indictment but yet another article of impeachment as well.

5b3f9a219e2a102f008b47ed-750-375.jpgDrew Angerer/Getty Images

 

12 Agents, Butina, and Helsinki

17 Tuesday Jul 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Good news! The Russian scandal now officially can be sung to the tune of the Twelve Days of Christmas: 12 Russian agents, Butina’s russian channel, election interference, PUTIN “STRONG AND POWERFUL!”  Which is good, because everything else is not sounding quite so festive.

The indictments of 12 Russian agents, for the hacking of the Democratic National Convention and the Clinton Presidential Campaign, and the filing of charges against Mariia Butina, a Russian woman who allegedly tried to broker secret meetings between President Putin and President Trump, further confirm  what the intelligence community already knew: that Russia interfered with the 2016 federal elections. As if that wasn’t frightening enough, our President doesn’t seem to mind. After meeting with Putin in Helsinki and asking him about the Russian meddling, Trump could only comment about the strength of Putin’s denial. Needless to say, Americans are feeling a bit miffed. But where does this leave us in the impeachment debate?

There are two arguments to be made here. The first and, most obvious, is that all this adds to potential charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States. The more certain we are that Russia interfered with the election, the stronger the case for collusion becomes. Of course to establish collusion, it would have to be shown that there was some agreement between Trump and Russia. To that point it helps that there are ties between the indicted Russians and members of Trump’s campaign. In addition, though Trump’s ongoing support of Putin is not direct evidence of conspiracy, it does have a suggestive quality and could indicate a more nefarious relationship between the two.

One may also consider Trump’s reaction as an example of his unfitness. It can be argued that a failure to reprimand the leader of a country which has taken action to defraud the United States is a failure of one of the most basic duties of the President: that of the Chief Diplomat. This can be added to the list of the President’s other shortcomings; however it is unclear how long a list is required to lead to removal.

download.jpgYURI KADOBNOV/AFP/Getty Images

 

A Deeper Conspiracy: Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates Enter the Mix

20 Sunday May 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The New York Times reports that Donald Trump Jr. met with George Nader, an emissary for the princes of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and Joel Zamel, an Israeli social media specialist, 3 months before President Trump’s 2016 election. Supposedly, the main purpose of the meeting was to develop relationships among the parties, but there was also discussion of the potential for social media manipulation on behalf of the Trump campaign. Nader and Zamel met with the Trump team again after he was elected. These meetings are being investigated by the FBI.

The question which may spring to one’s mind is whether this meeting could constitute further conspiracy to defraud the United States. This question has been analyzed thoroughly by Professor Bowman in the context of the Russian Lawyer Meeting. The crime is composed of two basic elements: 1) an agreement to 2) defraud the United States. The United States can be defrauded of its right to a fair and honest election, and we will assume for the sake of this post that the manipulation of social media constitutes such a fraudulent taking (though that may in fact be a gray area). So what is left to be examined is whether the meeting between Trump Jr., Nader, and Zamel constitutes an agreement.

Though we have no direct evidence of an agreement, a conspiracy may be established, at least in the context of antitrust, by parallel behavior accompanied by certain “plus factors” (those which add to the circumstantial possibility of agreement).  What we know is that Nader paid Zamel $2 million after President Trump was elected, the reason for which is unclear. We also know that Trump recently abandoned the Iran Nuclear Deal, a position Nader was known for advocating. This is probably not enough to establish a conspiracy, but perhaps further investigation will reveal more. There is also some evidence of ties between Nader and Zamel and Russia. Though it is very unclear as of yet, we may be dealing a conspiracy much larger than we first imagined.

20DC-INVESTIGATE-nader-superJumbo-v2.jpgRon Sachs/Picture-Alliance, via Associated Press

Trump Claims Obama Acquiesced in Face of Russian Interference

21 Wednesday Feb 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In response to the indictment of a group of Russians for meddling with the 2016 presidential election, Trump seems to have asked why Attorney General Jeff Sessions has not investigated the crimes of President Obama, because the meddling happened during the Obama administration, and “. . . . [he] [didn’t] do something about [it].” The allegation came in the form of a tweet, which read:

Question: If all of the Russian meddling took place during the Obama Administration, right up to January 20th, why aren’t they the subject of the investigation? Why didn’t Obama do something about the meddling? Why aren’t Dem crimes under investigation? Ask Jeff Sessions!

Trump’s question as to why Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General, is not investigating the Obama Administration and the the crimes of the Democrats, reads as an allegation of criminal conduct. The fact that he sandwiched Obama’s lack of action in the middle of his question further suggests that President Obama, by virtue of his inaction, is guilty of a crime. If that analysis is correct, the President is suggesting that acquiescence in the face of a complete conspiracy is criminal conduct. There is some argument to made here (though a very poor one). Section 3 of Title 18 of the United States Code says that “whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.” This crime, though arguably the most relevant to Trump’s allegation, is a very bad fit. One would have to believe that Obama, in not speaking out harshly enough against the Russian meddlers, relieved, comforted, or assisted them to prevent their prosecution. One might argue that if Obama were to impose no sanctions on Russia he may in some way be preventing its “punishment.” Still, that would be a very abstract argument, because if President Obama had decided not to sanction the Russians, there would be no punishment to prevent. This argument is still more outrageous, in light of the fact that Obama DID sanction Russia for election meddling in the last two years of his administration.

All that being said, I think it is far from accurate to suggest that a less-than-fierce reaction to Russian election interference could be considered criminal. However, if it could, Trump would have something far worse to fear than President Obama — President Trump himself has yet to impose the Russian sanctions passed by Congress last year. Despite all this analysis, I doubt Trump meant to make a serious accusation. Rather he continues to try and distract the American people by pointing fingers away from himself.

f63d3fa9e9b34571ca1b4b11f5a8598b.jpgJim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

 

The Merits of a Strategic Shutdown

16 Tuesday Jan 2018

Posted by in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

If Congress is unable to pass a spending bill by this Friday at midnight, the government will shutdown for the first time since 2013. With elections looming in 2018 and presidential elections in 2020, Parties and the President must decide whether it would be better to allow a government shutdown then to cede their policy concerns. The spending bill is currently stalled over immigration issues. A bipartisan proposal was recently rejected by President Trump, who wanted stronger restrictions on immigration and more funding for his border wall. The Democrats meanwhile are unwilling to cede on certain immigration issues, such as an easier path to citizenship for the dreamers. So the question is then, if the current stalemate were to result in a government shutdown, which party would it reflect poorly on?

President Trump recently tweeted that “the Democrats want to shut down the Government over Amnesty for all and Border Security.” Meanwhile, Democrats are claiming that the President is racist, citing his “shithole” comment. In 2013, both parties tried to blame the other for the government shutdown. Therefore, it is possible that no party will look good in light of a government shutdown. But the President might: Trump has tweeted before that the government needs a good shutdown, and indeed, the comment is in line with the anti-government rhetoric upon which he ran. It may be that the Republican party will be harmed by a government shutdown, however if Trump comes out unharmed, it won’t matter.

ap18009641510185.jpgAssociated Press/Evan Vucci