The Independent View: Review of Mueller's Legal Issues

Mueller's Statements, that the Hearings aren't likely to turn up New Information about the Trump Campaign, could have genuinely Changed the Trajectory of the Trump-Russia Story, by Drawing Connections between the Report and Mueller's Earlier Rounds of Indictments, and also by Highlighting Mueller's possible Legal Errors, the Opportunities he didn't Take, and why he Skipped them.

But that's only possible with the Right Format. It is hard for even the Best Lawyers to follow up on Someone else’s Line of Questioning or set up someone else’s Questions. Two or Three Expert Staff Lawyers working Together would have been the only Efficient and Effective use of such Limited and Interrupted time.

To have any real hope of getting Deeper into the Story of Trump and Russia, or Clarity about Mueller’s Confusing Conclusions, they needed Questioners Capable of Drilling into Complex Issues, who can Professionally but Tenaciously Grill a Respected Public Figure and Highlight his Possible Mistakes.

Possible Errors:

Law of Coordination in Campaign Finance Law - The Department of Justice’s Appointment Letter assigned Mueller to Investigate Campaign “Coordination”. His Report stated that “Coordination does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express.” However, Congress Explicitly aimed to Avoid such a Permissive Interpretation. In 2002, Congress Passed a Statute declaring that Campaign Finance Regulations “shall not require agreement or formal collaboration to establish coordination,” and any Knowing and Willful Violations are Criminal. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) implemented the Statute accordingly: “Coordinated means made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate,” without any Requirement to prove Agreement. The Supreme Court upheld these Coordination Rules in 2003: “Expenditures made after a wink or nod often will be as useful to the candidate as cash.”

Mueller’s Error in Interpreting "Coordination" has already had Serious Consequences. Mueller’s Team Prosecuted Paul Manafort and Rick Gates for Separate Crimes Not directly related to the Trump Campaign, but Mueller also found the Evidence that these Campaign Officials Committed Felony Coordination. It was a Historic Error to Overlook such Crimes, effectively inviting the same Suggestions and Winks-and-Nods in 2020. A Formal Conclusion that the Trump Campaign Committed Crimes would have made Trump’s Obstruction more Glaring and Scandalous. Without such a Conclusion, Volume II of his Report, on the Obstruction, fell Flat.

In-Kind Contribution - Sometimes Donors offer Service as In-Kind Contributions. Trumps Foundation Donation Money was transferred to the Campaign and not Reported on Financial Filings. Campaign Donations going to Trump as Rent for Campaign Offices. The Problem Mueller had was the Requirement to Determine the Monetary Value in the Charging Documents and his Inability to get Financial Documents.

Opposition Research - Might be Protected by the First Amendment, and Accepting a Blanket Defense of Manafort, a Lawyer and a Veteran Campaign Official or Advisor in Four Presidential Campaigns, as not “having relevant knowledge of these legal issues.” If an Operative like Manafort Can't be Assumed to have that Knowledge, then who possibly could?

Foreign Criminal Coordination Volume I, on the Campaign and Russia, also surprisingly Omits Key Facts that the Mueller Team revealed Elsewhere in Prosecutorial Documents, which when put in Context make a Case for Criminal Coordination. For example, the Mueller Team's Indictments of the Russian Hackers showed a Remarkable Coincidence in Dates between Trump Campaign Signals and Russian Hacking and Leaking efforts, often on the Same Day or even within Hours. But the Report itself either Failed to Note or Failed to Emphasize most of these.

Mueller Team’s Indictment of Stone said a Senior Campaign Official “was directed to contact Stone about any additional releases and what other damaging information [WikiLeaks] had regarding the Clinton Campaign.” Who Directed that Campaign Official? Who was Coordinating with Stone? Presumably these Answers are Redacted from the Report. But given the Significance to these Events, an Expert Questioner might have Elicit more Context.

In addition, many Prosecutors would have drawn far Different Inferences from so much Circumstantial Evidence of Wrongdoing and Intent. And even if Mueller couldn’t Indict Trump under OLC Policy, why did this Policy have a Double-Whammy of Not even being able to make Legal Conclusions? Trump had Twitter to Respond.

The Hearing could have Played the Valuable Role of Drawing Connections, Correcting Reported Errors, and Laying-Out their Significance in the Public Record.

The Mueller Team’s Fact-Finding is so Thorough, so Important, and so Damning of Trump’s Criminal Behavior, that Committees needed to Highlight and Emphasize those Aspects of his Work without the Exercise Feeling like a Partisan Gang Tackle.