Here is an exposition and presentation of some of this week’s national security-related threads authored by Just Security Editorial Board member and former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.
Trump Jr. Meeting with Russian Lawyer in June 2016
In the thread below, Renato analyzes whether the June 9, 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower could carry criminal implications in light of news reports this week. Trump Jr. may have promised that the Trump administration would take a look at the Magnitsky Act (which targeted Russian officials), and in the same meeting, asked Veselnitskaya whether she could provide financial documents showing that money that had evaded U.S. taxes went to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
The potential federal criminal charge includes honest services fraud, defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1346. In public corruption cases applying the statute, the theory of the case is that a government official offers an “official act” in exchange for something “of value.” Here, there are two legal wrinkles and two factual wrinkles.
First, an “official act” presumes that a person is in a position of power such that they can perform the official act. A legal question is whether a promise of an official act during an electoral campaign constitutes an “official act.” If that were not the case, it would seem that the honest services law would have a significant flaw in failing to capture campaign quid pro quo arrangements and corruption. If it were the case, that would open up the question of what would happen if the campaign official or their candidate did not follow through with the promise once elected.
Second, if a federal honest services charge could be brought against Trump Jr., President Trump could easily pardon him. That raises the question of whether New York state public corruption law also applies. Renato notes the NY penal statute below. If NY state law would apply, President Trump’s federal pardon power would not be able to stop NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman from bringing a state prosecution.
Third, in terms of factual wrinkles, it is not clear from the reporting whether Trump Jr. or the lawyer understood this to be an exchange. We know that Veselnitskaya told Bloomberg that Trump Jr. both promised to take a look at the Magnitsky Act, and also asked for the documents, but not what the mental state of each were (whether they understood it to be an offer of an exchange).
Fourth, as former CIA Clandestine Service officer John Sipher says below, the legal case above rests on whether a prosecution is able to corroborate Veselnitskaya’s claims, because as Mariotti notes, she presents major credibility problems.
THREAD: Why today’s news indicates that Trump Jr. could have significant criminal liability in connection with the Trump Tower meeting.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
1/ Today @bpolitics reported about its two and a half hour interview of the Russian lawyer who met with Trump Jr. https://t.co/HNIhggWDEK
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
2/ She indicated two separate but very important things about her conversation with Trump Jr.: pic.twitter.com/BNbuBjTv5O
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
3/ On one hand, she discussed with Trump Jr. the repeal of the Magnitsky Act, which punishes certain Russian officials for a murder. pic.twitter.com/JT7Lelss9z
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
4/ As a result of that act, Russia banned adoptions of Russian children by U.S. citizens. We’ve heard “adoptions” discussed by Trump Jr.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
5/ It does not appear that Trump Jr. or Kushner dispute that the Magnitsky Act was discussed at the meeting.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
6/ The biggest news in the Bloomberg piece is what she said Trump Jr. would do about the Magnitsky Act. She recounted his words: pic.twitter.com/1u9tQYDGv3
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
7/ So Trump Jr. suggested that his father’s administration, if he was elected, would re-examine whether to keep the Magnitsky Act.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
8/ That isn’t all Trump Jr. talked about. He also asked the Russian lawyer for dirt on Hillary Clinton in the same meeting: pic.twitter.com/DjXfnbJS5o
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
9/ Trump Jr. doesn’t dispute this part either, which is why I’ve said many times that his public statements on this subject were a bad idea.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
10/ It is a federal crime to exchange an “official act” for something of value. It’s called “theft of honest services.”
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
11/ To put it more simply, offering to exchange an official act for something of value is like soliciting a bribe.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
12/ There can be no serious question that supporting repeal of the Magnitsky Act would be an official act for purposes of this statute.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
13/ The big question is whether there was a connection between the offer to consider repealing the Act and the request for dirt on Clinton.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
14/ This question is very commonplace in run of the mill corruption cases. Let’s take the example of a corrupt city council member.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
15/ The city council member will rarely directly say that he won’t consider a voting change unless $5,000 is paid.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
16/ What usually happens is the zoning change is discussed and then the city council member brings up a $5,000 donation.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
17/ The connection is implicit and both sides understand what is going on, even if it’s unsaid. So how do prosecutors overcome that hurdle?
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
18/ Typically the conversation is recorded, and the other person in the conversation testifies as to her understanding of what was meant.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
19/ In this case, there is no recording, as far as we know. But many people were present for the conversation.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
20/ The question is what the Russian lawyer understood Trump Jr. to mean during the conversation. Did she think he wanted dirt in exchange?
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
21/ She has potential liability and would need immunity, and has credibility issues because she appears to have been a Russian operative.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
22/ So Mueller has significant challenges to overcome in proving this. There is another potential challenge that I’ll raise here.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
23/ Trump Jr. could argue that his offer wasn’t an “official act” because his dad wasn’t President yet and he didn’t promise to repeal.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
24/ I have not researched these issues. Neither would help him in front of a jury, but the question is whether a judge would toss the case.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
25/ My preliminary take is both of those issues could be overcome by Mueller but that’s fact-specific and I haven’t researched that point.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
26/ Another question I’ll look at more is whether a New York criminal statute was violated. Trump can’t pardon state offenses.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
27/ My initial glance at New York law suggests that, unsurprisingly, this is also a felony under state law (PEN 200.50): pic.twitter.com/rONzVXTsFr
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
28/ I’ll look into these issues more later today before my appearance on @NicolleDWallace at 4 pm ET / 3pm CT. /end
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 6, 2017
You logic and examples make sense. However, can we base anything on what she says? There is no assumption of truth with her.
— John Sipher (@john_sipher) November 7, 2017
As I mentioned, she has credibility problems. There are a lot of people in the room and Mueller will need to interview all of them.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 7, 2017
Mueller has Enough Evidence to Indict Michael Flynn and His Son
In these two threads, Renato outlines Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s likely strategy in light of a report that he has enough evidence to indict Michael Flynn and his son Michael Flynn Jr. That strategy would probably involve informing Michael Flynn of an impending indictment of his son, in hopes of securing Flynn’s full cooperation in the Special Counsel’s investigation.
Mariotti also notes that Flynn Jr. has attacked Mueller on Twitter, suggesting two things: (1) that Flynn and his son are aware of potential charges by Mueller and have decided to refuse to cooperate, (2) that Flynn and his son both may expect a pardon from Trump in the case of an indictment by Mueller, and are not very concerned about state-level charges that Trump can’t pardon. Renato highlights that, on the other hand, if more recent reports are true that Flynn is worried about his son’s legal predicament, it suggests the Flynns may not be so confident in the possibility of a pardon.
THREAD: Why is Michael Flynn worried about his son’s criminal liability, and what does it mean for Mueller?
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 9, 2017
1/ Today @CNN reported that Flynn is worried about his son being indicted by Mueller. https://t.co/tkHC6JjFWA
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 9, 2017
2/ This shouldn’t surprise us, because @NBCNews recently reported that Mueller has sufficient evidence to indict Flynn and his son, as I discussed in this thread: https://t.co/l2t7cmhvtc
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 9, 2017
3/ Flynn’s reaction to his son’s potential liability is what I’m used to seeing from the target of a criminal investigation. Getting indicted by a federal prosecutor is a very serious problem. They usually win and the result is usually time in federal prison.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 9, 2017
4/ But today’s news is a turn of events because, as I discussed in the prior thread, Flynn’s son has been publicly trashing Mueller. He falsely alleged Mueller was tied to Hamas, among other things.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 9, 2017
5/ You don’t need to be a former federal prosecutor to know that publicly and personally attacking the prosecutor is a really bad idea if you’re about to be indicted.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 9, 2017
6/ The prosecutor recommends a sentence if you’re convicted, and during the course of your case, you may want the prosecutor’s cooperation on some issues even if you’re mounting an aggressive defense.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 9, 2017
7/ My original takeaway from the foolish actions of Flynn’s son is that he expected to be pardoned, because that was the only rational explanation for his otherwise irrational behavior.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 9, 2017
8/ Now that we know Flynn is worried about his son, that means this could play out like other criminal cases. That means Flynn could cooperate with Mueller’s investigation in exchange for leniency for his son.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 9, 2017
9/ That’s called “vicarious cooperation” and it’s fairly common. In other notable cases, federal prosecutors have built cases against family members to get someone to flip.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 9, 2017
10/ For example, my former colleagues built a case against the girlfriend of a top aide to former Illinois governor George Ryan. It worked—he flipped and was a key witness against Ryan. https://t.co/kR8Xb0nul5
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 9, 2017
11/ You could imagine the same thing happening here, unless Trump intervenes with pardons. That’s possible, given Comey’s testimony that Trump asked him to drop the investigation against Flynn. Time will tell. /end
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 9, 2017
THREAD: What can we expect to happen to Michael Flynn and his son, given today’s news that Mueller has enough evidence to indict both?
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 5, 2017
1/ Today @NBCNews reported Mueller has enough evidence to charge former National Security Advisor Flynn and his son. https://t.co/Mt2f242SOn
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 5, 2017
2/ The article reports that Mueller is putting increased pressure on Flynn after his indictment of Manafort.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 5, 2017
3/ This suggests to me that Mueller’s team contacted Flynn about cooperating, and that Flynn’s team is the source of this story.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 5, 2017
4/ It is commonplace for federal prosecutors to contact defense counsel before they bring indictments in white collar cases.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 5, 2017
5/ The obvious leverage that Mueller has over Flynn is that he could indict Flynn’s son. Flynn could cooperate on his son’s behalf.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 5, 2017
6/ That’s called “vicarious cooperation.” I discussed that at length in this thread: https://t.co/Bn6FE4hZCG
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 5, 2017
7/ Typically I’d expect Mueller to have a reasonable chance at convincing Flynn to cooperate on his son’s behalf.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 5, 2017
8/ The article indicates Mueller is looking at whether Flynn received millions of dollars in exchange for helping the Turkish government.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 5, 2017
9/ If that is charged and proved, it would likely result in a substantial prison sentence for Flynn above and beyond what his son faces.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 5, 2017
10/ But in this case, we should expect that Trump will pardon Flynn. If Comey was truthful, Trump asked him to stop investigating Flynn.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 5, 2017
11/ Flynn’s son has been on a twitter tirade against Mueller today. For instance, he retweeted this: https://t.co/oVY4QYvrPo
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 5, 2017
12/ If you check out @mflynnJR you’ll see many recent tweets attacking Mueller. It’s common for defendants to attack the prosecutor.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 5, 2017
13/ It’s fairly unusual for them to do that before there are charges. It suggests that Flynn Jr. knows he’ll be charged and refuses to flip.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 5, 2017
14/ That tells me that Flynn and his son expect a pardon. Publicly attacking the prosecutor is a foolish move otherwise.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 5, 2017
15/ For one thing, prosecutors recommend sentences to the judge. At times, the defense also wants the government to work with them.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 5, 2017
16/ An aggressive defense can be a very good thing, but needlessly attacking the prosecutor’s integrity or character is rarely helpful.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 5, 2017
17/ So it appears that Flynn and his son expect a pardon and are not worried about state charges, which Trump can’t pardon. /end
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 5, 2017
Congressional Bill Calling on Mueller to Resign
Here, Renato says that Rep. Mike Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.)’s resolution calling on Mueller to resign is dangerous in inhibiting law enforcement’s ability to do its job. The resolution does not cite Mueller’s breaking of any kind of ethical rule or law, but rather for telling an FBI informant that he couldn’t publicly reveal information while Mueller served as FBI Director (2001-2013). Renato adds that it is commonplace for law enforcement to tell informants not to publicly reveal matters that are currently under investigation, and that Mueller himself did not even do so, but rather that agents under Mueller did. Thus, in Renato’s view, Gaetz’s resolution calls on Mueller to resign because the FBI agents under him did their jobs as law enforcement officers.
THREAD: Why the resolution to push Mueller to resign is not only dangerous, but also makes absolutely no sense. https://t.co/tzx2SOdv7W
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 3, 2017
1/ The Congressman I quoted above introduced a resolution calling on Mueller to resign, following on Trump’s efforts to attack Mueller.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 3, 2017
2/ It is dangerous for the President of the United States to attack the independence of law enforcement and try to influence them.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 3, 2017
3/ It is even more dangerous for the President to suggest that law enforcement should investigate his political enemies.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 3, 2017
4/ Lately the claims have gotten even more absurd, suggesting that Mueller himself should be investigated for wrongdoing.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 3, 2017
5/ That’s where this latest resolution comes in. That Congressman calls on Mueller to resign. Not for breaking the law or an ethics rule.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 3, 2017
6/ His claim is just that Mueller headed up the FBI at a time when the FBI told a confidential informant he couldn’t publicly reveal info.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 3, 2017
7/ It is standard and commonplace for the FBI to ask informants not to reveal information about matters that are under investigation.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 3, 2017
8/ Did this Congressman ask anyone in law enforcement before drafting a resolution that has no merit whatsoever?
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 3, 2017
9/ His bogus resolution embarrasses the office he holds and the citizens he represents.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 3, 2017
10/ It’s worth noting that he doesn’t allege Mueller did anything himself.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 3, 2017
11/ So he wants Mueller to resign because FBI agents under him did their job. We shouldn’t take his resolution seriously. /end
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 3, 2017
Papadopoulos Revelations Raise Concerns About Sessions’ Honesty
Here, Renato states that revelations from court records in George Papadopoulos’ case suggest that Attorney General Jeff Sessions may not have been entirely honest in denying any Trump campaign contacts with Russian officials during his Senate testimony.
Just Security’s Co-Editor-in-Chief Ryan Goodman and I argue that it is a “Close Call” whether perjury charges could be leveled against Sessions in light of reports that Papadopoulos and Page both informed their Trump campaign supervisors about Russian contacts.
1/ @CNN @mkraju reports Papadopoulos revelations raise concerns that Sessions wasn’t candid during Senate testimony. https://t.co/hgKiGMhzHY
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 2, 2017
2/ As discussed recently, @CNN reported that Papadopoulos proposed a meeting with Putin and Trump didn’t say no. Sessions did.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 2, 2017
3/ But Sessions wasn’t forthcoming about this meeting despite hours of intense questioning by Senators. It is a crime to lie to Congress.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 2, 2017
4/ I haven’t re-read the transcript but I suspect that he did not directly lie. Merely being evasive is insufficient.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 2, 2017
5/ I suspect he will explain a failure to be forthcoming by saying he forgot about the encounter with Papadopoulos. /end
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 2, 2017
Trump Security Chief Testifies to Congress That He Rejected Russian Offer to Send Women to Trump’s Hotel Room
Here, Renato analyzes the important role that Trump’s security chief could have in corroborating the Steele dossier and testifying as to personal interactions with Trump:
1/ Today @CNN reported that Schiller told Congressional investigators that he rejected a Russian offer to send five women to Trump’s room and that Trump laughed off the suggestion. https://t.co/xD5wjVLD2X
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 9, 2017
2/ This issue was raised by Congressional investigators because it relates to a salacious detail in the now-famous Trump dossier written by former British spy Christopher Steele.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 9, 2017
3/ Republicans, including Trump associates, have attacked the dossier as not credible. But important details of the dossier have been corroborated. Although what Schiller said is at odds with the dossier, the fact that the suggestion was raised is consistent with the dossier.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 9, 2017
4/ The dossier itself cannot be used by Mueller as evidence. It is a compilation of background intelligence. Mueller needs to find witnesses who can testify based on their personal knowledge (like Schiller) as well as documents he can authenticate and introduce at a trial.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 9, 2017
5/ The dossier is best understood as background intelligence that Mueller can use to generate leads. It helps him know what questions to ask, which witnesses to interview, and which documents to subpoena.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 9, 2017
6/ Schiller can be an extremely important witness for Mueller because of his access to Trump. Nothing Schiller saw or heard Trump say is privileged–there is no bodyguard-employer privilege. So everything he saw and heard is fair game.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 9, 2017
7/ Although the media has focused on Schiller’s role in delivering the letter that fired James Comey, Schiller’s most important testimony will likely be about what Trump said, heard, and saw in his presence. /end
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) November 9, 2017