Trump and Obstruction: What Alan Dershowitz Gets Wrong

Special Counsel Robert Mueller reportedly is investigating President Trump for possible obstruction of justice. The investigation is in its early stages, but one prominent legal voice has already decided obstruction charges would be improper. Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz has been all over cable news, Twitter, and elsewhere, claiming a president cannot be charged with obstruction for firing the FBI director or trying to shut down an investigation. But Dershowitz’s arguments don’t hold up.

Trump's firing of James Comey may have been obstruction of justice

Former FBI Director James Comey

The Allegations of Possible Obstruction

The facts are familiar by now. Former FBI director James Comey provided more details in his recent testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Among other things, Comey testified about the meeting where President Trump cleared the room and then told Comey he hoped he could drop the investigation of former national security advisor Michael Flynn.

When Comey didn’t drop the Flynn investigation, Trump fired him. Trump later admitted he acted at least in part because of Comey’s handing of the “Russia thing.” He also told Russian officials that firing Comey had relieved pressure Trump was feeling from the Russia matter. Comey himself testified he believes he was fired because of the Russia investigation.

Obstruction of justice occurs when someone corruptly impairs, obstructs or impedes the due administration of justice in an official proceeding, or endeavors to do so. Many observers, including the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, believe Trump’s actions could potentially amount to obstruction. (For a deeper dive into the crime of obstruction and how a federal prosecutor would approach the case, see my earlier post here.)

Professor Dershowitz’s Argument

Professor Dershowitz disagrees. He argues that regardless of the reasons for Trump’s actions, they could not legally constitute obstruction of justice. He notes that the president, as head of the executive branch, has the constitutional authority to fire the FBI director. He also has the power, as the FBI director’s boss, to tell the director to halt a particular investigation. In fact, Dershowitz notes, Trump could have called in Comey and said, “I’m pardoning Flynn, you are to stop this investigation right now.”

Because the president has these powers, Dershowitz says, Trump’s actions could not be obstruction. Unlike committing perjury or threatening a witness, firing the FBI director or telling him to stop an investigation is something a president may lawfully do. Dershowitz claims obstruction of justice can never be based solely on a president exercising this constitutional authority as head of the executive branch.

Because the president’s actions were otherwise lawful, Dershowitz says, criminal charges necessarily would be based solely on what was on the president’s mind. And that, he claims, would be improper. In one article he argues, “Even assuming that Trump was improperly motivated in firing Comey, motive alone should never constitute a crime. There should have to be an unlawful act.” Elsewhere he argues that charging Trump would amount to prosecuting the president  “based on what he was thinking rather than what he was doing.”

Dershowitz agrees Trump’s actions may have been unwise and may have political consequences. But absent evidence of some other crime, he says, they could not legally constitute obstruction of justice.

The Issue of Corrupt Intent

Dershowitz’s argument rests on his claim that it’s improper to make something a crime “based on what was in the President’s mind.” But a great deal of criminal law hinges on just that: what was in the defendant’s mind, or what was his intent. Dershowitz is correct that motive alone cannot be a crime. But often it is precisely the defendant’s motive, or intent, that makes an otherwise lawful act potentially criminal.

If I shred my business files because I’m cleaning out my office, that’s not a problem. But suppose I shred the same files because they have been subpoenaed and I don’t want to turn them over to the grand jury. The same action now becomes the crime of obstruction of justice, based on what was in my mind. I acted with corrupt intent, and my otherwise lawful act is now criminal.

Or to take an example from the current prosecution of Senator Bob Menendez: If I take a U.S. Senator on my private jet for a vacation at my Dominican villa because we are old friends, that’s perfectly innocent. If I take him on the same trip to influence him to intercede on my behalf in a dispute I have with the government, now I am acting with corrupt intent and the same actions may become bribery.

Dershowitz himself is inconsistent on this point. He agrees a president could be prosecuted if he lied to the FBI during an investigation, a violation of the False Statements statute, 18 U.S.C. 1001. But whether a false statement is a crime also depends on the defendant’s intent.  If the president made a false statement to the FBI because he simply forgot some relevant facts or misunderstood the question, that would not violate the statute. To be criminal a false statement must be a knowing and deliberate lie. And to prove that intent, a prosecutor would have to prove what was in the president’s mind – the very thing Dershowitz claims is prohibited when it comes to obstruction.

Dershowitz argues that, “A president cannot be charged with a crime for properly exercising his constitutional authority.” I agree – but the key word is “properly.” If the president acts with the corrupt intent to save himself from legal jeopardy, he is not properly exercising his authority.

If Trump tried to thwart an investigation because he feared it might lead to him, that could be obstruction of justice. Contrary to Dershowitz’s claim, this would not amount to charging the president based on his motive alone. It would be based on his actions, which become potentially criminal when carried out with corrupt intent.

The Power to Pardon

Dershowitz also argues the president could have pardoned Flynn and ended the investigation that way. That’s true, but it’s beside the point. The issue then just shifts to whether the pardon was granted for a corrupt reason. The power to pardon does not include power to do so for criminal reasons. Nor does the greater power – the ability to grant a pardon – mean that the lesser power of influencing or halting an investigation may be done corruptly.

Dershowitz apparently believes a president never could be charged with obstruction based on granting a pardon. I don’t agree. Suppose prosecutors could prove a president pardoned someone in return for that person’s explicit promise not to testify against the president? Sounds like obstruction to me. The president can do it, and the pardon would be valid, but that doesn’t mean the president is immune from the legal consequences of his corrupt actions.

Dershowitz has argued, “Obviously if a president accepts a bribe in exchange for a pardon that is corrupt act, without regard to motive or intent.” But you can’t have a corrupt act “without regard to motive or intent.”  It’s the defendant’s intent that makes an act corrupt in the first place. Without corrupt intent, there is no bribe. Granting a pardon in exchange for a bribe could indeed be the corrupt act of bribery — and granting a pardon to head off an investigation that was pointing toward the president could be the corrupt act of obstruction of justice.

Caspar Weinberger was pardoned by President George H.W. Bush

Former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger

The Iran-Contra “Precedent”

Dershowitz has repeatedly claimed (see here and here, for example) there is “precedent” supporting his view, and has challenged his critics to “distinguish that precedent.” He notes that President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger, his secretary of defense, and five other individuals who were implicated in the Iran-Contra affair. Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh was furious and suspected Bush may have acted to prevent those individuals from implicating Bush himself.

Dershowitz notes that Walsh did not charge Bush with obstruction of justice for those pardons. He claims this supports his argument that a President can never be charged with obstruction for exercising his constitutional powers, “regardless of his mental state.”

But a failure to bring a case is not “precedent,” at least not in the way lawyers usually talk about it. Lawyers refer to precedent in terms of authoritative court decisions or other formal legal opinions that analyze a particular legal question. A decision not to bring charges is not a precedent that can guide future cases.

For example, suppose I represented a police officer charged with shooting and killing an unarmed civilian. I could not cite as precedent other cases of deadly force where officers were not indicted and argue that means my client cannot be charged. The Independent Counsel chose not to indict Bill Clinton for perjury or obstruction after he survived impeachment. That does not establish a precedent that a president cannot commit those crimes.

Criminal cases are extremely fact-specific. There may be any number of reasons charges are not filed. In the Bush example, maybe Walsh decided, despite his personal anger and disappointment, that the evidence of Bush’s corrupt intent wasn’t there. Maybe Walsh exercised his discretion not to pursue criminal charges because Bush had already lost the election and was leaving office anyway. Or maybe Walsh just blew it and made a bad decision.

In the end, the only thing the Walsh example tells us is that Walsh chose not to file charges on the facts of that case. That decision tells us nothing about whether charges against Trump would be appropriate or legally sound. It certainly doesn’t amount to a precedent that needs to be distinguished.

The Comey Letter to the FBI

Dershowitz has also argued that Comey’s letter to his former colleagues at the FBI after he was fired supports Dershowitz’s arguments. In the letter Comey said, “I have long believed that a President can fire an FBI Director for any reason, or for no reason at all.” Dershowitz claims this proves Comey agrees with him that the president had the absolute right to act as he did. But trying to turn a farewell letter to colleagues into a legal analysis is a stretch. Comey obviously was not opining on the finer points of obstruction of justice law.

During his Senate testimony, when asked whether he thought President Trump had tried to obstruct the Russia investigation, Comey replied that was a matter for the Special Counsel to consider. If he agreed with Dershowitz, one might have expected Comey to reply, “No, Senator, I believe the president had the absolute right to do what he did and that it could never legally amount to obstruction of justice.”

But not even Dershowitz believes Comey’s letter is literally correct. Dershowitz has conceded that if the president took a bribe to fire Comey, that would be a crime. So he doesn’t really believe the president could fire Comey “for any reason.”

To the extent we want to consider Comey’s letter at all, it’s reasonable to conclude Comey simply meant the president can fire the FBI director for any lawful reason. It’s probably a good bet that Comey does not believe it’s OK for the president to fire the FBI director to save himself from being prosecuted.

Nixon told Frost, "If the President does it, that means it's not illegal."

David Frost interviews Richard Nixon

If the President Does It, It’s Not Illegal?

Richard Nixon famously told David Frost that if the president does something, that means it’s not illegal. Dershowitz does not go that far. He agrees the president could not grant a pardon or cancel an investigation in exchange for a bribe, because that would be an independent criminal act. He also agrees a president could be charged with obstruction for committing perjury or telling others to lie. But absent some other criminal act, he argues, the president cannot be charged with obstruction.

If proof of bribery or another criminal act would justify an obstruction charge, it must be because, in Dershowitz’s view, the criminal act establishes corrupt intent. So Dershowitz is not really saying the president could never be charged with obstruction for exercising his executive authority. He’s just arguing about what constitutes adequate proof of corrupt intent. At least where the president is concerned, he apparently believes corrupt intent can only be established by an independently criminal act.

The basis for this claim is unclear. Again, otherwise lawful acts, such as shredding my files, may become criminal if carried out with the intent to obstruct justice. I know of no legal authority for the proposition that obstruction of justice requires proof the obstructive acts also violated another criminal statute. Dershowitz certainly doesn’t point to any such authority. It seems to be some special rule he has created only for the office of the presidency.

Concerns about Vagueness

Dershowitz’s real concern actually appears to be over the breadth and language of the obstruction of justice statute itself. He argues civil libertarians should be worried about prosecutors charging criminal misconduct based on potentially vague terms such as “corrupt intent.”

These are legitimate issues often raised in white collar cases. White collar law deals with broad terms like fraud and corruption that are not well defined. In particular cases there may be valid concerns about vagueness and whether a defendant was truly on notice that his conduct might be criminal.

But Dershowitz isn’t simply saying that because of the breadth of the statute and the president’s position, prosecutors should consider charges only if the evidence of corrupt intent is overwhelming. That would be a legitimate argument. Rather, Dershowitz is claiming that unless the President commits another crime as well, he could never be charged with using the power of his office to obstruct justice, even if he stood on a soapbox on 5th Avenue and confessed that was his purpose.

If Dershowitz wants to argue for reform of obstruction of justice law, that’s perfectly valid. But he shouldn’t use concerns about that law to attempt to carve out some kind of special exemption for the president. It’s not new or unique to have criminal charges hinge on the defendant’s state of mind — it happens all the time. The president is no exception.

Should Trump Be Charged With Obstruction?

I have no idea whether Trump is likely to be charged. And I’m not arguing he clearly obstructed justice. A great deal of investigation remains to be done before the experienced prosecutors in the Special Counsel’s office could make that decision. Any obstruction case would face some significant legal and evidentiary hurdles. It’s not even clear a sitting president can be indicted at all.

Even if an indictment is legally possible, the Special Counsel could exercise his discretion not to bring charges. As I’ve argued before, the appropriate remedies may be political rather than criminal.

But as long as we still believe no one is above the law, it can’t be the rule that the president, and the president alone, is free to wield his otherwise lawful powers in a corrupt way.

At bottom, that’s the argument Dershowitz is making — and that’s why he’s wrong.

Like this post? Click here to join the Sidebars mailing list

Update: No Charges To Be Filed Against Former Oregon Governor and First Lady

Federal authorities in Oregon announced Friday they will not be filing any criminal charges against former Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber and former first lady Cylvia Hayes. The investigation led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Oregon had been going on for more than two years. Kitzhaber resigned in 2015 in the midst of a scandal involving allegations that Hayes may have traded on her position in his administration to obtain lucrative private consulting contracts.

I wrote about the investigation back in 2015 when it first began. This post discusses the nature of the allegations and what the grand jury might be investigating. This post talks about the law of honest services fraud and whether it might apply to Oregon’s first lady.

After a more than two-year investigation, no criminal charges. That’s sometimes the nature of white collar criminal investigations. With a street crime, such as a homicide, we know a crime has been committed. With white collar, often it takes a lengthy grand jury investigation to determine whether a crime has been committed at all — and sometimes the answer is no.

Like this post? Click here to join the Sidebars mailing list.

Lying on a Security Clearance Form: The Crime of False Statements

A number of Trump administration figures are under investigation for having contacts with Russian officials. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn allegedly had repeated contacts with the Russians during the Trump campaign and transition. Flynn was forced to resign and has asserted his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in response to the ongoing inquiries.

At his confirmation hearing Attorney General Jeff Sessions denied having any contact with Russian officials, but he later admitted to having several meetings with the Russian ambassador. This led to allegations that Sessions may have committed perjury during his hearing testimony.

Most recently there were reports that Trump’s senior advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner allegedly met with Russian officials about setting up some back channel communications through the Russian embassy. Kushner also is alleged to have had multiple contacts with other Russians, including a Russian banker closely tied to Russian intelligence.

The FBI, Special Counsel, and several Congressional committees are now investigating these various contacts. Some may turn out to be criminal, others may turn out to be simply unwise, and others may be perfectly innocent. But most have one thing in common: the administration officials who had the Russian contacts apparently failed to disclose them when they applied for a security clearance.

Even innocent contacts could result in criminal prosecution if people lied about them or failed to disclose them when required. The charge would be false statements, a key workhorse in the white collar crime stables.

False statements on a security clearance form may be a crime

SF-86: Questionnaire for National Security Positions

The Disclosure Requirement: Form SF-86

All those seeking a security clearance and access to classified information are required to complete a Standard Form 86, or SF-86. This lengthy (over 100 pages) questionnaire is painfully familiar to many government employees. The federal government uses the information in the SF-86 to conduct a background investigation and determine whether access to classified information is appropriate.

The SF-86 requires you to report detailed information about your personal background, employment history, education, marital status, family members, places you have lived, travel, and much more. It also asks about foreign contacts and foreign activities.

In particular, question 20B.6 asks whether the applicant has had any contact at all with any foreign governments or their representatives in the past seven years. If the answer is “yes,” the applicant must provide detailed information about those contacts.

All high-level members of the new administration would have filled out an SF-86. The allegation concerning Kushner, Flynn, Sessions, and others is that when completing the form they failed to report their various meetings with Russian officials.

The Relevant Statute: False Statements

The instructions for the SF-86 include the following warning:

The U.S. Criminal Code (title 18, section 1001) provides that knowingly falsifying or concealing a material fact is a felony which may result in fines and/or up to five (5) years imprisonment.

Many of us have seen similar warnings on other government forms. But what exactly is title 18, section § 1001, and what does it require the government to prove?

False statements, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully –

1) falsify, conceal, or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

2) make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

3) make or use any false writing or document knowing that it contains any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent entry,

in any matter within the jurisdiction of one of the three branches of the federal government.

The false statements statute is extremely broad. It potentially applies to virtually any lie to the federal government. Unlike perjury, you don’t have to be under oath. The government does not need to be harmed or to have relied on your statement in any way. The lies may be written (as on an SF-86) or verbal.  (Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby were both convicted under 1001 for lying during FBI interviews.)

Sometimes the false statement itself is part of the central misconduct in a case. If I lie on an application for a government grant or contract, the lie is an integral part of my criminal scheme to cheat the government out of something. False statements may be one of the statutes used to prosecute such a scheme, along with mail or wire fraud or other appropriate charges.

But sometimes a violation of section 1001 falls into the category of a cover-up crime, similar to perjury or obstruction of justice. In such a case the false statement is a secondary offense that conceals some other underlying misconduct. That’s the allegation in the investigations involving Trump officials. The claim is they lied on the SF-86 in order to conceal underlying contacts with the Russians that may have been improper — or at the very least embarrassing.

False Statements on a Security Clearance Form

To convict under section 1001, the government must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1) The defendant made a false statement, used a false document or writing, or concealed facts through a trick, scheme, or device;

2) The false statements or concealed facts were material;

3) The statement or concealment took place in a matter within the jurisdiction of one of the three branches of the federal government; and

4) The defendant acted knowingly and willfully.

Let’s consider how these elements would be met in a hypothetical case involving failure to disclose foreign contacts on an SF-86.

1) False Statement, Writing, or Concealment

The first requirement is that the statement be false. That may seem a bit obvious. But as it is with the related crime of perjury, the requirement of actual falsity is important. It means there is no room for ambiguity or uncertainty. If a question or answer is open to different interpretations, a statement that initially appears false may not be.

The statute prohibits making false statements and using false documents. The SF-86 asks whether the applicant has had any contact with foreign representatives in the past seven years and asks the applicant to check “yes” or “no.” Checking “no” could be a false statement under section 1001(a)(2) if in fact such contacts had occurred.

Section 1001(a)(1) also prohibits concealing material facts through a “trick, scheme, or device,” even in the absence of outright lies. This portion of the statute likely would also come into play in a case involving failure to disclose meetings with foreign officials. The SF-86 requires the applicant to list the details about any foreign contacts. Failing to list those meetings could qualify as concealment of material facts.

Because there is no general duty to speak to the government, the concealing material facts theory may be used only when the defendant is under a duty to disclose the facts in question. In this case the obligation to disclose is readily found in the requirements of the SF-86 itself. Those who choose to complete the application are required to provide all relevant information.

2) Materiality 

As with the related crime of perjury, the false statements or concealed facts must be material. The law does not punish lies that are trivial or irrelevant.

Materiality is defined very broadly. The statement need only have the potential to affect the decision of the agency to which it is made. There is no requirement that the statement actually affected any outcome, that it was believed, or that the government relied on it in any way. In other words, materiality is judged based on the nature of the statement, not on any actual impact that it had.

In this case materiality would be clear. A primary purpose of the SF-86 is to reveal any potential foreign entanglements that might pose a security risk. Information about contacts with Russian officials, especially so close to the election, would undoubtedly have the potential to affect the decisions of those doing the background investigation. Lying about or concealing that information could therefore violate the statute.

3) Within the Jurisdiction of the Federal Government  

The statement or concealment also must be in a matter within the jurisdiction of one of the three branches of the federal government. “Jurisdiction” is broadly defined. It simply means the agency or office to which the statement is made has some authority to act on the matter in question.

This requirement serves to establish a basis for federal criminal jurisdiction. The lies must be in connection with business of the federal government. Lying to your boss, or your neighbor, or even to a state agency is generally not going to fall within the statute.

In this case the jurisdiction requirement would be easily satisfied. The SF-86 is submitted to the Executive branch, which has the authority to act on the information and investigate whether to grant a security clearance. Any statements or concealment on the SF-86 are plainly in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Executive branch.

4) Knowing and Willful 

As with so many white collar offenses, the intent requirement is where the rubber meets the road. In any case involving an allegedly false SF-86, the key issue would be proving the defendant’s state of mind.

The knowing and willful requirement means the lies or concealment must be intentional and done with a bad purpose. The statute does not apply to mistakes or inadvertent failures to disclose. It doesn’t apply if a person was simply confused or misunderstood the question. It doesn’t apply if he failed to disclose the relevant information because he forgot it.

Courts generally interpret the “willful” requirement to mean the defendant knew not only that the statement was false but also that making the false statement was unlawful. That would not be much of a hurdle in an SF-86 case. The form itself warns that false statements or concealment can be a criminal offense. Any applicant would certainly know that foreign contacts are critical information when it comes to granting a security clearance.

The Defense: Lack of Criminal Intent

Attorney General Jeff Sessions

At this point it may be undisputed that SF-86 forms filed by various Trump officials are inaccurate. But filing a false form is not automatically a crime. The issue will be why the information was missing. The government would bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant deliberately sought to lie about or conceal the foreign contacts.

Attorney General Sessions has claimed officials conducting his background investigation told him he did not need to report some of his contacts with foreign officials. If this is true, it could be a defense. It suggests Sessions did not act willfully because he did not believe failing to include that information was unlawful. Even if the advice were incorrect, that would not matter if Sessions believed he was properly filling out the form.

Jared Kushner apparently has claimed he forgot about some of his meetings with Russian officials. If he omitted foreign contacts because he honestly forgot about the meetings, that too would be a defense. Again, it demonstrates a lack of intent. If he did not recall the meetings when he completed the form, then he did not willfully conceal the information.

Michael Flynn may also claim he forgot about various Russian contacts. Or he may claim he did not believe they needed to be disclosed. His position is unclear at this point, because he has declined to speak with investigators unless he is granted immunity.

To prove a crime the government would need to establish that a defendant was not forgetful or acting on outside advice but was deliberately and wrongfully trying to conceal the information. Absent some direct evidence (such as statements by the defendant), the proof may consist of circumstantial evidence that ultimately makes innocent explanations completely implausible.

Whatever the outcome of the investigation into the Russian contacts themselves, the potential false statements are a separate investigative track. Even if the underlying contacts end up being perfectly innocent, lying about those contacts could be criminal.

People in D.C. are familiar with the maxim that sometimes the cover-up is worse than the original misconduct. The Independent Counsel will determine whether that’s the case here.

Like this post? Click here to join the Sidebars mailing list.

Michael Flynn Took the Fifth – So What Happens Now?

Yesterday former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn informed the Senate Intelligence Committee he will not comply with its subpoena. The subpoena sought any documents in Flynn’s possession relating to any communications or dealings with Russian officials. Through his attorneys, Flynn claimed that turning over the documents would violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Now that Flynn has taken the Fifth, what happens next? Basically there are three alternatives: 1) the Senate challenges the claim of privilege; 2) the Senate grants Flynn immunity; or 3) the Senate decides to accept Flynn’s assertion of privilege and move on with its investigation.

But the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee has reportedly expressed surprise that Flynn could take the Fifth in connection with a subpoena for documents. So the first question is:

Can He Do That?

No one has a right simply to refuse to comply with a subpoena. Flynn can’t just say, “No, thanks” and refuse to turn over the documents. He has to have a valid legal excuse. In this case, he claims that excuse is his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.

Flynn had already asserted the Fifth in connection with any possible testimony before Congress. Weeks ago he indicated he would cooperate and testify only if he was granted immunity. So far Congress has not taken him up on that offer.

But when it comes to producing documents, rather than testifying, the rules are more complicated. The Fifth Amendment generally does not protect the contents of documents that were voluntarily created. Suppose I write in my diary, “I shot the Sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy.” Then I lose the diary and someone turns it in to the authorities, or investigators seize the diary while executing a search warrant.

The contents of the diary certainly incriminate me. But I can’t claim a Fifth Amendment right not to have it used against me. The government did not compel me to write in my diary. The Fifth Amendment limits only government compulsion of testimony and so does not apply.

Act of Production Privilege

When it comes to producing documents, the Fifth Amendment protection is not based on the contents of those documents. It’s based on something called “act of production privilege.” Act of production privilege recognizes there may be testimonial aspects involved in producing documents that are subpoenaed.

If I turn over subpoenaed documents I am admitting the documents exist, that I have them, and that I believe they are responsive to the subpoena. Forcing me to respond to the subpoena may be akin to putting me on the stand and requiring me to make those admissions. In that situation I may be able to refuse to comply, because to comply would be to incriminate myself.

Act of production privilege does not automatically apply to any document subpoena. If the government can establish that the existence of the records is a foregone conclusion – in other words, anyone in my position would be expected to have the types of records called for – it can argue there is nothing testimonial about turning them over. In addition, sometimes the government can show with some specificity that it already knows the documents exist and that I have them. In that case, the act of producing them adds nothing to the government’s knowledge and would not be privileged.

But sometimes the government knows little or nothing about the nature of potential documents or whether they even exist and is just fishing to see what’s out there. In such a case, responding to the subpoena by identifying and turning over documents may be a testimonial act.

Congress is investigating Flynn over possible contacts with Russian officials and for allegedly lying about those contacts. Documents reflecting any such contacts are therefore potentially incriminating. His attorneys argue the Senate has failed to demonstrate that the existence of the subpoenaed documents is a foregone conclusion or that the Senate already knows the documents exist. Accordingly, they say, to turn over any such documents would be a privileged testimonial act.

So now that Flynn has taken the Fifth and refused to turn over the documents, where does the investigation go from here?

Michael Flynn has invoked the Fifth Amendment

Former Nat’l Security Advisor Michael Flynn

Option One: Fighting the Privilege Claim

Congress is not required to accept Flynn’s assertion of privilege at face value. If the Senate believes the privilege claim is unfounded, if can seek to enforce the subpoena. The Senate Committee leaders have reportedly said they will “vigorously pursue” the production of the documents. There are different ways the Senate could do this.

One alternative is for the Senate to file a civil lawsuit against Flynn seeking to enforce the subpoena. In the lawsuit Flynn would assert his Fifth Amendment claim as a defense, and a judge would rule on whether that claim was valid. If Flynn lost, he could appeal. If he lost again, he could ask the Supreme Court to hear the case. In the end, if the courts found there was no privilege, a judge would order Flynn to comply with the subpoena. If he still refused, he could be punished for contempt of court.

A second alternative is for the Senate to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and ask him to prosecute Flynn for criminal contempt of Congress. After receiving the referral, the U.S. Attorney would decide whether to pursue the contempt case. If the U.S. Attorney chose to indict Flynn for contempt of Congress, Flynn’s defense would be that the Fifth Amendment justified his refusal to comply. Once again, the courts would ultimately rule on that claim.

The U.S. Attorney could also decide that Flynn’s Fifth Amendment claim is valid and prosecution for contempt would not be appropriate. This happened recently in the case of Lois Lerner, a former IRS official. When she took the Fifth and refused to testify before a Congressional committee about claims the IRS had improperly targeted certain political groups, Congress referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney for a contempt prosecution. The U.S. Attorney, however, decided that Lerner’s privilege claim was justified and declined to bring a case. (You can find my post with more detail about contempt of Congress and the Lerner case here.)

A referral to the U.S. Attorney turns control of the contempt decision over to the Executive Branch. But a third option is for Congress to charge Flynn itself, using its own inherent contempt power. Although this inherent contempt power is well established, Congress hasn’t used it since the 1930s.

If the Senate chose to go this route there would be a hearing before Congress, similar to a trial. Flynn would appear, be represented by counsel, and would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege as his justification for not honoring the subpoena.

If Congress rejected Flynn’s privilege claim and found him in contempt, it could have Flynn jailed until he complied with the subpoena. If that happened, of course, Flynn’s lawyers would immediately go to court seeking to have his Fifth Amendment rights vindicated and to have Flynn released. So once again we would ultimately end up with a court ruling on whether the privilege claim is valid.

These three options for enforcing the subpoena have one thing in common: none of them are quick. With court hearings and appeals it could easily take many months to resolve the privilege claims. If the Senate’s primary goal is to get the information quickly, it could instead pursue option two: granting Flynn immunity.

Option Two: Immunizing Flynn

Rather than fighting the privilege claim, the Senate could choose to grant Flynn immunity for his production of the documents. The immunity order would provide that the testimonial aspects of Flynn turning over the documents could not be used against him. In other words, the government could not introduce into evidence the fact that Flynn had possessed the documents or that he turned them over in response to a subpoena.

This more limited type of immunity is called, reasonably enough, act of production immunity. As with immunity generally, Congress has the power to grant act of production immunity even if the Department of Justice objects. Two-thirds of the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee would need to approve.

If granted act of production immunity Flynn would no longer have a basis to withhold the documents. If he continued to refuse to comply with the subpoena he would face contempt charges and could be jailed until he complied.

Immunizing Flynn would mean Congress would get the documents quickly, but there is a risk. The grant of immunity could end up torpedoing a future criminal prosecution of Flynn if a court found that the prosecution relied on information gathered from the documents produced. This happened in a case involving Webb Hubbell, President Bill Clinton’s former Associate Attorney General. Hubbell’s prosecution resulted in the leading Supreme Court decision on act of production immunity.

The Supreme Court ruled on act of production immunity in Webb Hubbell's case.

Former Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell

United States v. Hubbell

Hubbell was subpoenaed by the Whitewater Independent Counsel to produce a large number of documents to the grand jury. He asserted his Fifth Amendment act of production privilege and refused to produce the requested documents or even admit they existed. The prosecutors granted him immunity for the act of production, and Hubbell turned over more than 13,000 pages of responsive documents.

Based on information contained in the documents, the Independent Counsel later indicted Hubbell for tax crimes and fraud. But the Supreme Court threw out the indictment, saying it violated Hubbell’s Fifth Amendment rights.

The government did not seek to use evidence that Hubbell had possessed or produced the documents – that direct evidence would have violated the immunity order. But the contents of the documents had provided information that led to Hubbell’s indictment.

The Supreme Court held that by compelling Hubbell to assemble and produce documents responsive to the subpoena the government had made use of the “contents of his mind.” The government had only learned of the information in the documents as a result of that compulsion. Therefore using the contents of the documents to prosecute Hubbell was a prohibited “derivative use” of Hubbell’s immunized act of producing them.

The law on act of production immunity is not completely clear. And this case would be different from Hubbell’s in at least one important respect. In Hubbell the documents were subpoenaed by the same grand jury that later indicted him. In Flynn’s case Congress has issued the subpoena. That would make it easier for prosecutors to argue that their own investigation was not influenced by the documents. However, given how easily information spreads through the Internet (and how easily it leaks from Capitol Hill), it might be a challenge for prosecutors to prove their case was not tainted.

Congress could decide it is willing to take that risk in order to get the information quickly. They have done it before, most famously in the case of Oliver North during the Iran-Contra investigation, where Congress’s grant of immunity ultimately resulted in North’s criminal convictions being reversed. But by granting immunity Congress could end up begin accused of sabotaging any potential future criminal case against Flynn. For now, at least, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee has reportedly said that immunity is “off the table.”

Option Three: Just Move Along

The third option for Congress at this point is simply to accept Flynn’s assertion of privilege and move on. There is a great deal of investigating still to be done. Congress may be able to get much of the same information from other sources.

In addition to the investigations on Capitol Hill, the Special Counsel investigation will be moving forward. Criminal prosecutors may be able to build a case against Flynn without the subpoenaed documents. If Flynn were to end up facing charges, prosecutors could potentially negotiate a plea deal. As part of that deal Flynn could agree to turn over the documents and otherwise cooperate in the investigation of others.

Although there is public pressure to get to the bottom of what happened, the investigation is still in its infancy. Granting immunity could end up being a mistake if Flynn turns out to be one of the principal bad actors. Congress and the Special Counsel have plenty of time to pursue other avenues.

Click here to join the Sidebars mailing list and receive e-mail notification of future posts.

Did President Trump Obstruct Justice? A Prosecution Analysis

Did President Trump obstruct justice? On May 9, 2017, the President fired FBI Director James Comey. This unexpected move immediately raised questions about the President’s motives. Critics charged that Trump was seeking to derail the FBI investigation into possible Russian ties to the Trump campaign.

Then, a week after Comey was sacked, substantial fuel was added to the obstruction fire. The New York Times reported that in a private meeting in February President Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Comey apparently prepared a memo memorializing this meeting. Comey wrote that Trump told him Flynn was a “good guy” who didn’t do anything wrong, and said , “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.” Comey himself confirmed this account of the meeting during his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Jun 8.

There are additional facts as well. On May 19 the New York Times reported that in a meeting in the Oval Office with Russian officials the President told them, “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job.” Trump also reportedly told the Russian officials, “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Then on May 22, the Washington Post reported that Trump had asked the director of national intelligence and the director of the National Security Agency to publicly deny there was any evidence of collusion between Russian officials and the Trump campaign. Both refused to do so because they felt the request was inappropriate. Later in the same story, the Post reported that senior White House officials also had approached top intelligence officials to ask whether it was possible to ask Comey to shut down the FBI investigation.

“Obstruction of justice” is a term that gets tossed around fairly loosely. The op-ed pages and Twitter have been pronouncing Trump guilty for days. But the crime of obstruction of justice has specific requirements that can be difficult to prove. A federal prosecutor analyzing this as a criminal case would face some hurdles, although the case grows stronger with each new revelation. But in the end, political remedies — including potential impeachment — are more likely than criminal ones.

The Criminal Obstruction Statutes

Several different criminal statutes prohibit obstruction of justice. There are other options, but if I were considering this case I would focus on 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). This catch-all provision applies to anyone who “corruptly obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” The maximum penalty is twenty years in prison.

Obstruction is a crime independent of the merits of any underlying case. Even if an investigation doesn’t result in criminal charges, you can get in trouble for obstructing that investigation – just ask Scooter Libby or Martha Stewart. As the old saying goes, sometimes the cover-up is worse than the crime.

The statute applies to attempts to obstruct a proceeding even if they are unsuccessful. If the investigation into Russian ties continued unimpeded, that would not be a defense to any attempted obstruction.

What Is the Relevant Proceeding?

In any obstruction case, the first task is to identify the proceeding the defendant was allegedly trying to obstruct. There is no such thing as “obstruction in the air.” The government must prove the defendant had a particular proceeding in mind, even if that proceeding had not yet begun. (The prosecution’s failure to prove the link to a specific proceeding is what led the judge in the Bob and Maureen McDonnell case to throw out her obstruction conviction.)

Under § 1512 a proceeding may be a matter before any of the three branches of the federal government. A trial or other court proceeding, a Congressional investigation, or a proceeding before a federal agency all may qualify.

Doe an FBI investigation alone qualify as an “official proceeding” that may be obstructed? The courts and legal authorities are divided, but the better answer appears to be no. A different obstruction statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1519, could apply if Trump destroyed documents or records (or Oval Office tape recordings?) to impede the FBI investigation. But firing Comey or urging him to drop the case would not fall within that prohibition.

Even if an FBI investigation is not a “proceeding,” that does not mean Trump is necessarily off the hook. Removing the FBI director might have some tangential effect on the ongoing Congressional investigations, which do qualify as proceedings. But the most likely theory would be that Trump, by urging Comey to drop the investigation and then firing him when that didn’t happen, was attempting to impede the pending grand jury investigation into possible Russian connections to his campaign.

There were recent news reports that a federal grand jury has issued subpoenas for records related to Michael Flynn. There appears to be an active grand jury investigation, and there is probably little doubt the President was aware of it. A grand jury investigation is a “proceeding” for purposes of 1512.

This is a link made in many obstruction cases. The FBI investigates, but it can’t file charges and prosecute on its own. In a criminal case the FBI typically is working with federal prosecutors conducting a grand jury investigation. Often when people speak of obstructing an FBI investigation, what they really mean is obstructing the underlying grand jury proceeding in which the FBI is involved.

Prosecutors could charge that Trump sought to impede the grand jury investigation by persuading Comey to drop the case and, when that failed, by firing him. The government would bear the burden of proving Trump  had the grand jury investigation in mind when he took those actions.

Did President Trump obstruct justice by firing Comey?

Former FBI Director James Comey

Did President Trump Obstruct Justice?

As in so many white collar cases, the critical issue would be proving intent. Corrupt intent is the key to obstruction of justice. It means the defendant acted with the deliberate and dishonest purpose of interfering with the proceeding. In other words, wrongfully obstructing the proceeding is what he set out to do. It isn’t enough if the proceeding is affected as a collateral or unintended consequence of the defendant’s actions.

How would a prosecutor prove the President’s intent? One remarkable aspect of this case is the significance of the President’s own statements. During his recent interview with Lester Holt of NBC news, the President admitted he was thinking about the “Russia thing,” which he called a “made up story,” when he decided to fire Comey. This admission could get prosecutors over what is sometimes a significant hurdle: proving the defendant at least had the relevant proceeding in mind.

The day after firing Comey, the President reportedly told Russian officials that he had faced “pressure” over Russia and that firing Comey had removed that pressure. The defense would dispute exactly what the President meant by this, but at a minimum it is further evidence that Comey’s firing was linked in the President’s mind to the Russia investigation.

Building a Circumstantial Case

Prosecutors often prove corrupt intent by circumstantial evidence. In this case, there is no shortage of it. First, the timing of Comey’s firing is suspicious. Most of the misdeeds for which he allegedly was fired have been known for months. But the President chose to remove him only when the Russia investigation was reportedly heating up.

Reasons for the firing also seem suspect. The White House claims Comey was fired over his handling of  the Hillary Clinton email scandal. But as many have noted, the President previously praised Comey for those same actions, often while his crowds chanted, “Lock her up!” The claim the President fired Comey now for actions he took six months ago is perhaps implausible. But the notion that this President fired Comey because Comey was unfair to Hillary Clinton is laughable.

The White House also claimed the firing was necessary because Comey had lost the support and confidence of the rank and file members of the FBI. This was flatly contradicted by the now-acting director and Comey’s former chief deputy, Andrew McCabe, in testimony before the Senate Intelligence committee.

Then there is the shifting narrative about how the decision was made. The White House originally claimed the President acted based on a recommendation from newly-appointed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. When Rosenstein apparently objected (and perhaps threatened to resign), the President began saying he had decided to fire Comey on his own, prior to any recommendation.

Conflicting, shifting, and apparently untrue explanations for the President’s actions could provide compelling circumstantial evidence of corrupt intent. Often such evidence suggests the truth is something more sinister that the defendant wants to conceal.

The news that Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation provides significant additional circumstantial evidence of corrupt intent. The narrative then becomes that Trump first urged Comey to back off, and when that failed, he fired him. Reports that Trump asked others to leave the meeting before he spoke to Comey further suggest he knew he was doing something improper.

This theory is bolstered by the reports that senior White House officials had asked intelligence officials about intervening with Comey to see if they could ask him to shut down the Russia investigation. If those reports could be substantiated they would provide further evidence that the purpose of firing Comey was not to remove an ineffective leader or help the FBI but to thwart the Russia investigation.

The Defense: Lack of Corrupt Intent

Despite all of the above, this would not be a slam-dunk prosecution. When I first wrote this post after Comey was fired, I thought a potential criminal case would be very challenging. The news that has come out since then — including the Holt interview, the Oval Office meeting with the Russians, and the White House inquiries about possibly asking Comey to shut down the investigation — has made the case considerably stronger.

Proving to a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the President acted with corrupt intent would still be challenging. If the information in all the press reports could be verified and translated into admissible evidence, I think a prosecutor could build a pretty decent case. But the defense would have a lot to work with as well.

First there’s the fact that the President clearly has the right to fire the FBI director. Comey himself, in his letter to FBI personnel following his dismissal, noted his belief that the President could fire him at any time and for any reason. That’s not an ironclad defense, of course. If something you have the right to do is done for a corrupt purpose it can still be obstruction. But unlike a case where a defendant threatened a witness or fabricated evidence, prosecutors could not raise an inference of corrupt intent based solely on the nature of the President’s actions.

In addition, as the President has already pointed out, many people, both Democrats and Republicans, believed there were good grounds to fire Comey based on his actions over the past year. This would help raise a reasonable doubt about corrupt intent.

The President’s defense also would claim that his actions were too remote from the Russia investigation to constitute obstruction. The Supreme Court has held that acts are not obstruction unless they would have the “natural and probable effect” of influencing the proceeding if successful. In an institution as large as the FBI, removing the director may be unlikely to derail any one investigation. Indeed, acting director McCabe assured Congress this was the case and that the investigation will proceed unimpeded.

The Significance of Trump’s Own Statements

Some commentators have claimed the President basically admitted to obstruction by telling Lester Holt the “Russia thing”  was on his mind when he fired Comey. This is an overreach. Saying the President was thinking in part about the Russia investigation is not at all the same as saying he acted with the corrupt intent to obstruct that investigation.

This is a fine distinction, but a critical one. The President could fire Comey because he was mad about Comey’s handling of the Russia investigation and still not intend to obstruct that investigation. If the President believed (probably correctly) the investigation would continue unimpeded without Comey, he would lack the requisite intent to obstruct. Even if he was just mad at Comey and didn’t think at all about the effect on the investigation, that too would mean he lacked corrupt intent.

Later in the same NBC interview Trump also said he wanted the investigation to be done properly. Trump could argue that because Comey had become ineffective as a leader, firing him actually made it more likely the investigation would be successful.

Trump’s statements to the Russian officials about relieving “pressure” by firing Comey are also open to more than one interpretation. Based on the White House statements following the story, it appears Trump would argue that Comey’s mishandling of the investigation was disrupting the President’s attempts to forge better diplomatic relations with the Russians. When he referred to relieving pressure, the defense would argue, the President was referring to this interference with his diplomacy, not to the criminal investigation.

Some of these alternative explanations may seem implausible. I can see eyes rolling from here. But remember the President would not need to prove he acted without corrupt intent. The burden of proof always rests with the government. The defense would only need to raise a reasonable doubt about the President’s intent.

Every prosecutor has had the experience of having what seemed like a stone cold admission by a defendant be completely undermined by a plausible alternative explanation. I’m not trying to bend over backwards to provide excuses for the President’s statements. I’m simply acknowledging the difficulties that prosecutors can face when trying to prove guilt based on statements and circumstances that may be open to different interpretations.

Trump’s Alleged Request to Drop the Investigation

The evidence that President Trump asked Comey to drop the Flynn investigation provide significant additional evidence of possible obstruction of justice. But there are still some unresolved questions. First, the White House has denied Comey’s claims. Unless the rumored Oval Office tapes show up, the details of the meeting would be contested. Comey’s contemporaneous notes would carry significant weight, but disputes about the details and precisely what Trump said and how he said it could be important.

The President is the head of the Executive Branch and was Comey’s boss. This would make proving corrupt intent even more challenging. On some level the President does have the right to tell the FBI director what to do, just as he has the right to fire him.

There are long-standing norms and traditions about Justice Department independence and the White House not interfering in DOJ investigations. Trump’s alleged conversation with Comey seems to have trampled all over those norms. But whether breaching those norms amounts to a crime is a different question.

Trump’s private meeting with Comey is the incident that so far sounds the most like true obstruction. But it may depend on further information about Trump’s own involvement in any underlying misconduct. If it turns out Trump wanted the Flynn case dropped because he feared it would lead to him, that sounds like corrupt intent. But if Trump was not implicated and was simply genuinely concerned that his friend was being treated unfairly, that could suggest the conversation was perhaps improper and unwise but not criminal.

In response to reports about the meeting with Comey, the White House responded by saying essentially “this is just the way the President talks.” In other words, it was an offhand remark expressing his concern about Flynn, not a calculated effort to influence Comey. This is a version of a defense of lack of corrupt intent, and it may be perfectly plausible. The President simply may not have appreciated the impact such an offhand statement could have when it comes from the leader of the free world and the FBI director’s boss.

In situations such as the Comey meeting a great deal also depends on things like nuance, tone, and body language. Was the statement made in a menacing way or in an offhand way? How did Comey interpret it? Information like that does not come across in a memo to the file. During his Senate testimony Comey said he interpreted the President’s statement as a directive to him to drop the case. That would certainly be a significant fact in any obstruction case.

There’s Obstruction, and Then There’s Obstruction

In a criminal investigation of possible obstruction a grand jury could subpoena additional witnesses and documents. Perhaps prosecutors could develop stronger evidence of corrupt intent. The case would depend not on any one incident in isolation but on the pattern of the President’s actions. The circumstantial evidence is mounting, but a lot would need to be done to shore up that evidence. Prosecutors would need to establish that some of the things reported in the press actually took place and could be proven at trial.

The reality is that a criminal prosecution of President Trump is unlikely. Although it’s never been officially settled, most authorities – including the DOJ — believe the Constitution prohibits the prosecution of a sitting President. The scene where Trump is handcuffed and perp-walked out of the Oval Office is not going to happen.

But I think when most people accuse Trump of “obstructing justice,” they are not focused on the elements of a specific criminal statute. Through a series of actions (including the events discussed above, a request that Comey pledge his loyalty, asking Comey whether he was under investigation, and his subsequent Tweet about Comey that many interpreted as a threat) Trump appears to have violated fundamental constitutional and political norms concerning the rule of law and limitations on executive power. Trump’s actions may obstruct justice in this broader, structural sense even if not in a strictly legal one.

As with violations of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, the primary remedy for this obstruction would be political. Political remedies include elections, where the voters have a chance to register their disapproval. They also include impeachment, which is available for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” This is generally interpreted to mean misconduct related to public office, not necessarily precise criminal violations. Charges of obstruction of justice were central to the articles of impeachment of both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

Impeachment is primarily a political proceeding rather than a legal one. Congress does not need to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all elements of a crime the way a prosecutor does. Disregard of basic constitutional and political norms could fall short of a criminal offense and still justify impeachment. It’s up to the Members of Congress to decide whether misconduct rises to a level that would justify removing the President. For now, a great deal of additional investigation is needed before Congress could make those decisions.

As was true with alleged perjury by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, critics have been quick to accuse the President of a crime. But as I’m always telling my students, there is a lot of sleazy, unethical, and improper conduct that isn’t criminal. Trump’s potential interference with an ongoing investigation raises grave concerns. But the likely remedy lies with the political process, not a criminal prosecution.

Click here to join the Sidebars mailing list and receive e-mail notification of future posts.

Charging Foreign Officials Who Take Bribes with Conspiracy to Violate the FCPA

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits U.S. persons and companies from paying bribes to foreign officials to obtain or retain business. The statute applies only to those who pay the bribes, not to foreign officials who receive them. But a recent Supreme Court decision may revive a long-dormant legal theory: charging foreign officials with conspiracy to violate the FCPA.

Congress passed the FCPA in 1977 to combat U.S. companies participating in foreign corruption. In recent years FCPA enforcement has become a major priority for the Department of Justice and the SEC. FCPA cases have resulted in some of the largest criminal and civil fines in history. And although private citizen Donald Trump criticized the law in the past, Attorney General Sessions recently affirmed the Trump administration remains committed to its enforcement.

The FCPA is an unusual corruption statute in at least one respect. Bribery laws generally apply to both sides of a corrupt transaction, prohibiting the receipt of bribes by a public official as well as the payment of those bribes. The FCPA, by contrast, applies only to the bribe payer. Foreign officials who receive bribes may be subject to prosecution in their own country, but the language of the FCPA does not prohibit their actions.

Forty years after the FCPA’s passage, the economy is more global and interconnected than ever. DOJ is much more aggressive about asserting criminal jurisdiction over events that take place primarily in other countries. There are cases where DOJ may want to charge the foreign official accepting FCPA bribes. This may be particularly true when the official has extensive ties to and activities within the United States, or when prosecution in the official’s own country seems unlikely.

Because the FCPA does not apply to the bribe recipients, DOJ must look to other theories to hold them accountable. For example, in some recent cases DOJ has charged foreign officials with money laundering of funds received as part of an FCPA scheme.

But DOJ may have a more direct option: charging foreign officials who receive bribes with conspiracy to violate the FCPA. Conventional wisdom has been that such conspiracy charges are improper. This is based in large part on a single 1991 Court of Appeals case, United States v. Castle. But a recent Supreme Court decision casts doubt on Castle and may breathe new life into the conspiracy theory.

Bribery usually punishes both sides of the corrupt transaction

The Conspiracy Precedent: United States v. Castle

There was a time when DOJ believed it could charge foreign officials with conspiracy to violate the FCPA. In Castle the government used that theory to prosecute four individuals – two U.S. citizens and two Canadian officials. The Americans had allegedly paid the Canadians a $50,000 bribe to secure a contract to provide buses to the Saskatchewan government.

The conduct of the Americans plainly fell within the statute. But the Canadian defendants claimed they could not be charged with conspiracy to violate the FCPA. They argued the conspiracy charge was an improper attempt to circumvent Congress’s decision not to criminalize the foreign officials’s conduct.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed. The court said Congress knew any FCPA bribery transaction would necessarily involve a foreign official. But Congress chose not to criminalize the receipt of the bribe. Prosecuting foreign officials for conspiracy, the court held, would amount to an improper end run around this Congressional policy decision.

The Mann Act and Gebardi v. United States

The Castle court relied primarily on a 1932 Supreme Court case, Gebardi v. United States. Gebardi involved a prosecution under the Mann Act, which prohibited the transportation of women across state lines for “immoral purposes.” The Mann Act punished those doing the transporting but did not criminalize the actions of the woman being transported.

In Gebardi a woman agreed to cross state lines with her lover to have sex. When they were charged with conspiracy to violate the Mann Act, she argued the charge was improper. She noted that Congress deliberately chose not to criminalize her conduct in the Mann Act itself. To allow a conspiracy charge, she claimed, would subvert this Congressional decision. The Supreme Court agreed and dismissed the conspiracy case.

The Castle court held that the reasoning of Gebardi squarely applied to the FCPA. Failing to criminalize the receipt of bribes by foreign officials, the court said, represented “an affirmative legislative policy to leave unpunished a well-defined group of persons who were necessary parties to the acts constituting a violation of the substantive law.” Given that legislative decision, it was improper for prosecutors to use conspiracy to charge the foreign officials that the FCPA left unpunished.

Baltimore police were charged with extortion in Ocasio

Conspiracy and Ocasio v. United States

Since 1991 Castle has been widely cited for the proposition that it’s improper to charge foreign officials with conspiracy to violate the FCPA. But the Supreme Court’s decision last term in Ocasio v. United States suggests the high court would not agree.

In Ocasio the defendant was a Baltimore police officer. He, some fellow officers, and the owners of an auto garage took part in a scheme in which the garage owners paid the officers to refer car accident victims to the garage for repairs.

Officer Ocasio and the garage owners were charged with conspiracy to violate the Hobbs Act. That act prohibits extortion “under color of official right” by a public official. This is a common federal corruption charge, particularly in cases involving state or local officials.

In Evans v. United States the Supreme Court held that extortion under color of official right is basically equivalent to the receipt of a bribe. But the Hobbs Act applies only to the public official, not to the person who pays. So as interpreted by Evans the Hobbs Act, like the FCPA, is an odd bribery statute: it prohibits only one side of a two-sided corrupt transaction.

In Officer Ocasio’s case, that meant prosecutors couldn’t charge the garage owners with violating the Hobbs Act directly. So they charged the garage owners and the officers with conspiracy to violate the Hobbs Act. The government’s theory was that although the garage owners could not violate the Hobbs Act, they were still capable of conspiring to help the officers violate it. In effect, the garage owners were charged with conspiring to help the police officers extort money from the garage owners themselves.

Ocasio argued the conspiracy charge was improper. Part of his argument was similar to that made by the defendant in Gebardi. Although every Hobbs Act extortion case necessarily involves at least two parties, Congress expressly chose not to punish the person who pays the public official. Prosecuting the payer for conspiracy to violate the Hobbs Act, Ocasio argued, would undermine this Congressional decision.

Supreme Court precedent supports charging foreign officials with conspiracy to violate the FCPA

The Supreme Court on the Nature of Conspiracy

The Supreme Court disagreed with Officer Ocasio. The Court relied on basic principles of conspiracy law. It noted that conspiracy has always been a separate offense from the underlying crime. In a conspiracy charge, the crime is the agreement itself – the joint undertaking to engage in criminal activity.

Conspiracy does not require that the co-conspirators successfully commit the crime that is the object of the conspiracy. It does not require that each co-conspirator agree to commit or facilitate each and every element of the underlying crime. In fact, a conspirator may be convicted even if he was legally incapable of committing the underlying offense. Conspirators need only agree to help some member of the conspiracy commit the crime.

In Ocasio’s case, the garage owners conspired with the police officers to help the officers violate the Hobbs Act. The Court held this conspiracy theory was sound even though the garage owners, who were not public officials, would be legally incapable of committing extortion under color of official right: “It is sufficient to prove that the conspirators agreed that the underlying crime be committed by a member of the conspiracy who was capable of committing it. In other words, each conspirator must have specifically intended that some conspirator commit each element of the substantive offense.”

The Mann Act Precedents

The Ocasio Court also discussed Gebardi, as well as an even earlier Mann Act case, United States v. Holte (1915). In Holte the Court rejected the claim that it was impossible for the woman transported across state lines to be guilty of conspiracy to violate the Mann Act. The Court gave an example of a prostitute who buys the train tickets, arranges for the travel, and then crosses state lines with a companion. In such a case, the Court said, there was no reason the woman could not be charged with conspiracy even though the terms of the Mann Act did not cover her conduct.

The Court in Ocasio concluded Holte and Gebardi mean that merely participating in a two-sided transaction will not always be enough to charge the person not covered by the statute  with conspiracy. However, there could be cases where the active participation of the other party would rise to the level where a conspiracy charge would be warranted. Gebardi, the Court held, rejected the conspiracy charge not because it was inherently improper but simply because there was no evidence that the woman in that case had actually joined the conspiracy.

The Court concluded: “Holte and Gebardi make perfectly clear that a person may be convicted of conspiring to commit a substantive offense that he or she cannot personally commit. They also show that when that person’s consent or acquiescence is inherent in the underlying substantive offense, something more than bare consent or acquiescence may be needed to prove that the person was a conspirator.”

Charging Foreign Officials with Conspiracy to Violate the FCPA

Ocasio suggests the current Supreme Court would not agree with the Castle court’s reading of Gebardi. Like the FCPA, the Hobbs Act expressly fails to criminalize the acts of one of the two necessary parties in a criminal transaction. The court in Castle held that this Congressional judgment meant a conspiracy charge would always be improper. But the Supreme Court in Ocasio rejected a similar claim.

Castle essentially concluded that Congress’s failure to include foreign officials in the FCPA immunizes those officials from any FCPA-related charge, even under separate statutes. The current Supreme Court is unlikely to be sympathetic to that argument. If Congress wants to pass a statute prohibiting any charges of any kind against foreign officials who accept bribes, it is free to do so. But the Court is unlikely to infer such a broad policy decision from the silence in the FCPA. It is much more likely to find, as it did with the Hobbs Act, that nothing in the FCPA alters the basic law of conspiracy.

This suggests DOJ could properly charge a foreign official who receives bribes with conspiracy to violate the FCPA. The theory would be that the foreign official conspired to help U.S. persons violate the FCPA by bribing that official. Just as the garage owners in Ocasio conspired to help others extort money from the owners, foreign officials could conspire to help others pay bribes to the foreign officials.

This charge would be most appropriate where the foreign official was aggressively encouraging the bribes. As the Court noted in Ocasio, something more than mere passive participation likely would be required to find the officials guilty of a conspiracy. But if they were actively engaged in the scheme, a conspiracy charge may be warranted.

In a case where the foreign official is aggressively demanding bribes, punishment of the official may be particularly justified. The bribe payers arguably are being “shaken down.” They may feel they have little choice but to pay. Charging only the bribe payers in such a case is akin to charging only the victims of extortion in a Hobbs Act case – it may let the most culpable party off the hook.

Of course, cases where DOJ is interested in prosecuting the foreign official may be relatively rare. Where the official is more of a passive recipient, conspiracy charges may not be warranted. In many cases diplomatic, jurisdictional, evidentiary, or other concerns will counsel against filing charges.

But in appropriate cases, DOJ should consider charging foreign officials who accept bribes with conspiracy to violate the FCPA. Ocasio suggests the Department’s legal position more than twenty-five years ago in Castle was correct: conspiracy is a separate crime and there is no barrier to prosecution.

Click here to join the Sidebars mailing list and receive e-mail notification of future posts.

Why Bob McDonnell Won’t Save Bob Menendez

U.S. Senator Robert Menendez is facing trial this fall on corruption charges. His lawyers will claim the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Bob McDonnell case means the charges against Menendez cannot stand. But the effect of the McDonnell case on the Bob Menendez trial is likely to be pretty limited.

New Jersey Democrat Menendez and his co-defendant Dr. Salomon Melgen were indicted in April 2015. (You can find my detailed analysis of the indictment here.) The case has been on hold for two years while Menendez pursued claims that his prosecution is barred by the Constitution’s Speech or Debate clause. The trial court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected those arguments. The Supreme Court recently declined to hear his appeal, finally clearing the way for the case to go to trial.

But while Menendez was pursing his Speech or Debate appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court decided McDonnell v. United States. The Court reversed the convictions of the former governor of Virginia, holding that McDonnell did not perform “official acts” as defined by federal bribery law.

Senator Menendez and his lawyers are hoping that McDonnell will breathe new life into his own defense. They will argue that Senator Menendez, like Governor McDonnell, did not agree to perform any official acts. But for Menendez that’s going to be an uphill battle.

Senator Robert Menendez

Senator Robert Menendez

The Charges Against Senator Menendez

The Menendez/Melgen indictment describes a long-term bribery scheme. It charges that Melgen repeatedly provided Menendez with valuable gifts including multiple trips on his private jet, repeated stays at a luxury villa in the Dominican Republic, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to campaigns and legal defense funds. In exchange, Menendez allegedly interceded on Melgen’s behalf in several different government disputes. The government also alleges Menendez took steps to conceal these facts, including failing to report any of Melgen’s gifts.

The actions Menendez allegedly took on Melgen’s behalf fall into three general categories:

Visas:  In 2007 and 2008, Menendez and his staff contacted various embassy and State Department personnel to help three different foreign girlfriends of Melgen obtain visas to come to the United States.

Port Screening Contract:  Melgen owned an interest in a company that had a contract with the Dominican Republic to provide x-ray screening of cargo entering Dominican ports. The contract, potentially worth many millions of dollars, had been tied up in disputes. Menendez and his staff contacted different State Department officials, urging them to pressure the Dominican government to implement the contract. At one point Menendez met with an Assistant Secretary of State and said he was unsatisfied with the way State was handling the matter. Menendez allegedly threatened to hold a hearing and call the Assistant Secretary to testify.

Medicare dispute:  Melgen, a prominent Florida ophthalmologist, was embroiled for several years in a multi-million dollar dispute over his Medicare billings. He was allegedly using an eye medication designed for a single patient to treat two or three people. He would then bill Medicare as if he had purchased a separate vial for each patient. When Medicare discovered this practice they began pursuing claims against Melgen for overbilling.

Menendez and his staff worked for several years to help Melgen resolve this dispute. Menendez personally met with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and with the acting director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to advocate on Melgen’s behalf.

(As I write this, Dr. Melgen is currently on trial in Florida on a separate indictment charging him with Medicare fraud based in part on this scheme. Update: On April 28, 2017, Melgen was convicted on dozens of counts of fraud in the Florida case.)

What will be the effect of the McDonnell case on the Bob Menendez trial?

Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell

The McDonnell Decision

A jury convicted former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell and his wife Maureen of multiple counts of corruption in September 2014. The McDonnells accepted more than $170,000 in gifts and undocumented “loans” from businessman Jonnie Williams. In return, prosecutors charged, the McDonnells agreed to promote Anatabloc, a dietary supplement made by Williams’s company, within the Virginia government.

A unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the convictions. But in June 2016 the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that the steps taken by McDonnell on Williams’s behalf did not constitute “official acts” under federal bribery law. (You can find my more detailed analysis and critique of the Court’s opinion here.)

The Court based its decision on the language of the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201. That statute defines bribery, in part, as a public official accepting something of value in exchange for agreeing to be influenced in the performance of any “official act.” It further defines “official act” as “any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official . . . . ”

The evidence had shown that McDonnell made phone calls on Williams’s behalf, arranged meetings for Williams with other Virginia government officials, and hosted a product launch event for Anatabloc at the Governor’s mansion. The Court held that these actions, standing alone, did not amount to “official acts” and could not support a bribery conviction.

The Court broke its analysis down into two steps, focusing on the precise language of the official act definition. First, one must identify the relevant “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy” to which the alleged bribe relates. This language, the Court held, connotes a “formal exercise of government power, such as a lawsuit, hearing, or administrative determination.” It suggests something that is “relatively circumscribed – the kind of thing that can be put on an agenda, tracked for progress, and checked off as complete.”

Second, the Court said, the public official must agree to take a “decision or action” “on” the relevant matter, suit or controversy. This requires that the official take some steps to address or decide the matter, or to influence or advise others to do so. In particular, the requirement that the decision or action be “on” the matter – and not merely “about” or “related to” the matter – suggests the official is working to resolve it somehow.

The Court concluded that McDonnell’s actions did not amount to official acts under this analysis. There were several Anatabloc-related issues that could constitute a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy.” But simply making phone calls or arranging meetings did not amount to “decisions or actions on” any of those questions. McDonnell introduced Williams to various officials and extended other political courtesies related to Anatabloc. But McDonnell did not himself take steps to resolve any of the matters or pressure others to do so. Accordingly, the Court concluded, a bribery conviction based on McDonnell’s actions could not stand.

Did Senator Menendez Perform “Official Acts?”

Even before McDonnell was decided, Senator Menendez had filed motions arguing he had not performed any official acts. The trial court denied those motions back in 2015. Now, in the wake of McDonnell, Menendez will undoubtedly renew those arguments.

If we follow the Supreme Court’s two-step approach from McDonnell, it’s pretty easy to define the relevant “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy” for each aspect of Menendez’s case:

1) Should the State Department grant a visa to allow this individual to enter the United States?

2) Should the U.S. government work to persuade the Dominican government to implement the port security contract?

3) Should HHS modify its rules concerning the dosing of a particular eye medication? Or, more specifically, should the Department pursue its claims against Dr. Melgen about alleged overdosing?

Each of these is a circumscribed issue, a question that could be put on an agenda and checked off as resolved. They are the type of specific administrative or policy matters that McDonnell requires.

Menendez will argue that he, like McDonnell, did not take any “decisions or actions on” the defined matters. But Menendez’s actions were much more substantial than McDonnell’s. Menendez did not simply arrange meetings for Melgen or introduce him to other officials. The Senator himself attended various meetings and otherwise advocated for Melgen’s interests. Unlike McDonnell, Menendez was actively engaged in trying to influence the outcome of the matters in question.

An official act must also involve a matter that is “pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official . . . . ” Menendez will also argue that the identified matters were never pending before him and that he did not have the power to decide them. As a result, he will claim, his advocacy on these matters cannot amount to official acts by him.

But the Supreme Court in McDonnell squarely addressed this question. The Court held that a “decision or action” may include influencing another public official who has the power to decide: “decision or action may include using his official position to exert pressure on another official to perform an ‘official act,’ or to advise another official, knowing or intending that such advice will form the basis for an ‘official act’ by another official.’”

In other words, the official act does not have to be one the defendant himself has the power to resolve. It is sufficient if the defendant attempts to pressure, persuade, or advise another public official to perform an official act.

In the Menendez case the relevant matters were pending before various Executive Branch officials. Their resolution of those questions would constitute official acts. The indictment alleges that Senator Menendez attempted to pressure or persuade those officials to resolve the matters in Melgen’s favor. McDonnell makes it clear that such efforts can be official acts by Menendez,.

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose

Menendez has put himself in a bit of a box with the legal arguments he has already pursued. He argued all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court that the actions he took on Melgen’s behalf were part of his official duties as a U.S. Senator and should therefore be shielded by the Speech or Debate Clause. Courts rejected those arguments because the Speech or Debate Clause shields only legislative activities. Lobbying Executive Branch officials is not protected.

Now Menendez will be arguing that those same actions were so unconnected to his position as a Senator that they could not be official acts. As the government has pointed out, Menendez effectively has argued that nothing a U.S. Senator does can be prosecuted as bribery: if it’s not a legislative act shielded by the Speech or Debate clause, then it’s not an official act and can’t support a bribery conviction. Heads I win, tails you lose.

For example, in their original motion to dismiss based on failure to allege official acts, filed on July 20, 2015, his lawyers argued: “With respect to a U.S. Senator, invoking oversight authority and a threatened use of official powers would be an official act, but it also would be immunized by the Speech or Debate Clause.” (p. 6 fn. 4). But the courts have now rejected the latter half of that claim.

With respect to the Medicare dispute and the port contract issue, the government is indeed alleging that Menendez threatened to hold hearings and otherwise to invoke his oversight authority. Having conceded that these would amount to official acts, it will be a challenge now for the defense to claim otherwise without developing whiplash.

Effect of the McDonnell case on the Bob Menendez trial

As with all criminal trials, the Menendez case is going to come down to the government’s evidence. Menendez may claim that in his interactions with Executive Branch officials he was merely seeking information. He may argue he was not advocating for Melgen or trying to influence those officials. If that turns out to be true, it may be a defense. Merely attending a meeting to gather information would probably not fit the Supreme Court’s definition of official act.

But the government is alleging much more. It intends to prove that Menendez was vigorously advocating on Melgen’s behalf, trying to persuade or pressure Executive Branch officials to decide questions in Melgen’s favor. Such actions would fall squarely within McDonnell and would qualify as official acts by Menendez.

McDonnell’s primary effect will be on the jury instructions. Menendez’s lawyers will not get the case dismissed prior to trial based on the official act issue. Even in McDonnell the Supreme Court did not say it was impossible for any jury to find McDonnell guilty. The problem was that the jury was not properly instructed about the definition of official acts.

The McDonnell case will therefore shape the Menendez jury instructions concerning what the government must prove about official acts. The defense will argue the government has not met its burden. But if it proves the allegations in the indictment, the government should have no trouble meeting the McDonnell standard.

Every public corruption defendant for the foreseeable future is going to seek salvation in the McDonnell opinion. Menendez may have some other viable defenses, including his claim that there was no quid pro quo and that Melgen’s gifts were based simply on friendship. But the McDonnell case and the definition of official act are unlikely to save him.

Click here to join the Sidebars mailing list and receive e-mail notification of future posts.