The Steve Bannon Indictment: Charges and Potential Defenses

Former Trump advisor and right-wing provocateur Steve Bannon was indicted last week on two counts of contempt of Congress. The charges arise from his refusal to honor a subpoena from the House committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot. On the courthouse steps Bannon was defiant, vowing to fight and to make the case the “misdemeanor from hell” for the government.

Despite the tough talk, Bannon is likely headed to jail. That may not mean that he ends up testifying. But the Bannon indictment should make an impression on others who might be similarly inclined to stonewall the investigation. That’s good news for anyone who would like to get to the bottom of what happened on January 6.

Steve Bannon

Steve Bannon

Steve Bannon, a political strategist and media executive, is a well-known and controversial figure from the Trump years. He was formerly the head of Breitbart News, a far-right website. He worked on Trump’s campaign in 2016, where among other things he was involved with Roger Stone in trying to gather information about the Democratic emails stolen by the Russians and released by Wikileaks. He served for about seven months in 2017 as Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to president Trump. Bannon left the White House in 2017 and has not served in the government since. Currently he hosts a popular right-wing podcast, “The War Room,” which CNN has described as a “dangerous fantasyland of election lies.”

Bannon was involved in the “stop the steal” movement following the 2020 election. He reportedly was present in the Willard Hotel in the days leading up to January 6, as part of the “war room” that included Rudy Giuliani and others plotting how Trump might seek to overturn the election results. The night before the riot, Bannon said on his podcast that “all hell [was] going to break loose” the next day.

The House Committee Subpoena and Bannon’s Response

The U.S. House of Representatives has established a Select Committee to investigate the Capitol riot. That investigation includes exploring the facts and circumstances that led up to the attack and who was involved in helping to organize the events of that day. In recent weeks the Committee has issued a flurry of subpoenas to former Trump officials and allies who were involved in the efforts to overturn the election that culminated in the January 6 riot.

On September 23, the Committee issued a subpoena to Bannon for both testimony and documents. It cited his activities in the days leading up to the riot as evidence that he is likely to have information relevant to the Committee’s investigation. The subpoena required him to produce documents and records of communications in seventeen categories by October 7 and to appear for a deposition on October 14.

Bannon failed to produce the required documents or otherwise respond to the subpoena by the October 7 deadline. Late that day, his attorney sent a letter to the Committee saying that former president Trump was claiming the documents were privileged and had instructed Bannon not to comply. The Committee responded, pointing out that Trump had not formally asserted any privileges, that Bannon was a private citizen at the time of these events, and that in any event Bannon was still required to supply a list of responsive documents that he claimed were privileged and could not simply ignore the subpoena.

On October 13, the night before his scheduled deposition, Bannon’s attorney again wrote to the Committee, stating: “Until such time as you reach an agreement with President Trump or receive a court ruling as to the extent, scope and application of the executive privilege, in order to preserve the claim of executive and other privileges, Mr. Bannon will not be producing documents or testifying.”

Based on Bannon’s defiance of the subpoena, the Committee recommended that the full House vote to find him in contempt of Congress. The House approved a contempt resolution on October 21 and referred that resolution to the Department of Justice. On November 12, the grand jury returned its indictment.

The first page of the Bannon indictment

The Charges in the Steve Bannon Indictment

Bannon was indicted on two counts of Title 2, United States Code, Section 192, which provides:

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

A companion statute, section 194, provides that if the House or Senate votes to find a witness in contempt it shall refer the case to the appropriate U.S. Attorney (which ordinarily will be the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia), “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.”

As I’ve written here before, this crime is rarely prosecuted and the statute has been largely toothless. Most cases have involved officials of an administration controlled by one party invoking executive privilege and declining to provide documents or testify before a congressional committee controlled by the other party. When Congress then votes to find the witness in contempt and refers the matter to the Department of Justice, it is essentially asking the administration to prosecute one of its own for following the president’s instructions. Not surprisingly, that doesn’t happen.

Administrations of both parties have taken the position that, despite the statute’s “duty” language, prosecutors still retain the discretion to decide whether to pursue the case. And the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel has opined that it would violate the separation of powers for an executive branch official to be charged with contempt for refusing to honor a Congressional subpoena based on a claim of executive privilege.

But Bannon’s case is different: he is not an official within the administration that currently controls the executive branch. And at the time of the events under investigation Bannon was a private citizen, not a member of the Trump administration. The separation of powers issues that have resulted in past cases not being pursued are therefore not present in his case. That’s a big reason why he ended up being the first person in decades to be charged with this crime.

Steve Bannon with former president Trump
Bannon with Donald Trump

Bannon’s Possible Defenses – Or Lack Thereof

There doesn’t appear to be any doubt that the subpoena was lawfully authorized, Bannon received it, and he refused to comply. So his only possible defense is that he had some legal privilege that excused his non-compliance.

An initial problem for any Bannon defense based on privilege is that he completely failed to show up or to produce a privilege log of documents that he was withholding. If you’re subpoenaed and you think you have the right to assert a privilege, that doesn’t mean you simply get to ignore the subpoena. Typically you still need to show up, and then you can assert the privilege — question by question or document by document, if necessary.

Past administration officials who were referred for contempt of Congress, such as former attorney general Eric Holder, generally at least showed up to testify – often voluntarily, without a subpoena. The disputes arose when they asserted executive privilege over particular questions or documents. But they didn’t just entirely blow off the Congress and fail to show up at all.

Although Trump, when president, tried to claim that his senior officials were absolutely immune from testifying before Congress and did not even need to respond to a subpoena, that argument was rejected by the courts. And in any event, at the time of these events Bannon was not a member of the administration.

Regardless of the merits of any potential privilege claims, therefore, Bannon is going to have a tough time arguing that it allowed him to ignore the subpoena completely.

Executive Privilege

It appears Bannon’s primary defense will be that the documents and testimony sought by the subpoena are protected by executive privilege. That was the claim made in the letters from his attorney, who said Trump had instructed Bannon not to comply.

There are several problems with this potential defense. First, executive privilege can only be asserted by the president, and Trump has made no formal assertion of privilege. And because he is not the current president, it’s not clear that he could. That’s an issue currently being tested Trump’s lawsuit over a request from the committee to the White House for records related to January 6, where Trump is trying to assert executive privilege even though president Biden has agreed to release the records.

Second, although the scope of executive privilege is notoriously murky, it exists to encourage free and frank communication between a president and his or her advisors. That generally means those involved in the communications must have been part of the executive branch. But at the time of the events under investigation here, Bannon was a private citizen who had not worked in the White House for three years.

Third, the executive privilege exists to assist the president in the execution of his official duties. The allegation here is that any communications were not in furtherance of legitimate executive actions but were part of an attempt to overturn the lawful election. Just as the attorney-client privilege gives way if the communications are in furtherance of a crime or fraud, any claim of executive privilege should give way if the communications in question were in furtherance of an attempt to undermine democracy.

And finally, even if there were a colorable claim of executive privilege as to some particular questions or documents, there’s no chance that claim could apply to everything sought by the subpoena. A great deal of Bannon’s documents and communications undoubtedly involve his interactions with other private individuals, potentially including organizers and participants in the events of January 6. He can’t just say “executive privilege” and refuse to respond to anything at all – he would need to identify the particular documents or questions allegedly covered by the privilege.

Advice of Counsel and the Definition of Willful

Another key defense Bannon may try to raise is advice of counsel. He was working with an attorney, who communicated to the Committee on his behalf. He may try to defend his failure to honor the subpoena by claiming that his attorney advised him this was the proper way to proceed.

Under some circumstances, advice of counsel can be a defense to a criminal charge. It depends on the state of mind that the charge requires. Generally people are criminally responsible for the consequences of their intentional actions, and as the old saying goes, “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” But some statutes require the government to prove that a criminal defendant acted not just knowingly and intentionally but with an evil intent or in deliberate violation of a known legal duty. For crimes with this heightened intent requirement, a defendant may claim that a good-faith reliance on the advice of counsel demonstrates he lacked that intent.

In the context of the contempt of Congress statute, this will come down to the definition of “willful.” The statute requires the government to prove that the defendant “willfully” failed to comply with the subpoena. “Willful” is a confusing term in criminal law, because courts have held that its meaning varies from statute to statute. In some complex areas such as tax or securities crimes, courts have held that “willful” means the defendant acted in deliberate violation of a known legal duty. But for other crimes, the requirement that the defendant acted “willfully” simply means he acted deliberately and intentionally.

If “willful” in section 192 means the government must prove that Bannon acted in violation of a known legal duty, then he could present a defense that his attorney told him his actions were lawful. But unfortunately for Bannon, that argument is not likely to prevail. Way back in 1961, in a case called Licavoli v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that “willful” in this statute means simply that the defendant acted deliberately and intentionally. Violating a known legal duty, or evil motive, is not an element of the offense. The requirement of willfulness, the court held, simply distinguishes a deliberate and intentional failure to comply with a subpoena from a failure that might result from other reasons – for example, the witness has a car accident on the way to the hearing and ends up not appearing.

Other courts have also rejected an advice of counsel defense when it comes to contempt charges. They reason that allowing such a defense would substantially undermine the contempt power because a party in any proceeding could simply disregard court orders and later say “my lawyer told me it was OK.”

Another interesting wrinkle to this potential defense is that if Bannon were to try to claim he acted on the advice of counsel, that would require him to waive his attorney-client privilege concerning any communications with his lawyer regarding the subpoena. That might be interesting – and might not be something Bannon is willing to do.

But it shouldn’t come to that. If Bannon tries to raise an advice of counsel defense, it should be rejected. The judge should not allow him to argue it or allow that defense to go to the jury.

Fifth Amendment

Although he has not formally asserted it yet, it’s entirely possible that Bannon has a 5th Amendment privilege not to testify about the January 6 events because that testimony might incriminate him. That may mean that ultimately he never will end up testifying before the Committee.

But once again, that doesn’t excuse a total failure to comply. Once he was subpoenaed, unless he was excused he was obligated to show up and assert the privilege. So even if he might have been able to “take the Fifth” before the Committee, that will not be a defense to the contempt charges for simply ignoring the subpoena altogether.

The same is true when it comes to the documents. The contents of documents are not shielded by the 5th amendment. Under some limited circumstances a witness may take the 5th when it comes to producing documents if the act of turning them over might itself be incriminating because it means the witness is admitting he has them. But this “act of production” privilege is relatively narrow – and in any event, Bannon did not claim any such privilege. He couldn’t defend against the contempt charge by trying to claim it now.

The Likely Outcome

This criminal prosecution will not result in Bannon being compelled to testify. As I explained in this earlier post, the criminal process is to punish, not compel. If the Committee wants to try to compel his testimony it would need to pursue a civil case (or, less likely, inherent contempt). And since Bannon probably has a 5th amendment privilege anyway, they might decide it’s not worth it.

Bannon doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on in this case. I expect he will be convicted and will do some jail time (the statute requires a minimum of at least one month on each charge). The question is whether he really cares. David Frum in the Atlantic wrote a good piece about how, for Bannon, this is really a political proceeding, not a legal one. It will be a protest trial, like the trial of the Chicago Seven.

Bannon will use this prosecution to build his brand within Trump world and portray himself as a victim and martyr. You can’t buy that kind of publicity. He may not mind doing a few months in prison if it will make him a MAGA hero. And in the process he will do everything possible to make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and try to dirty up everyone on the government side.

More hopeful is the deterrent effect that his prosecution might have on others. There are some who have been subpoenaed – including former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former senior DOJ official Jeffrey Clark – who may be a lot more reluctant to have a criminal conviction on their records, much less to serve jail time. Bannon’s indictment should send a signal to those witnesses that they need to think twice before defying a Congressional subpoena.

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

A Rough Week for President Trump

With the number of legal proceedings and investigations swirling around president Trump, it’s easy to lose track of developments. But last week saw an extraordinary string of bad news for the president on several different fronts. The president should be riding high this week, with the Republican party nominating him for a second term. But last week was pretty rough.

Photo of president Trump

1. The New York District Attorney Case

As I wrote in my most recent post, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. has been engaged in a year-long battle to obtain president Trump’s tax returns and other financial records. Vance’s office is overseeing a New York state grand jury investigation into potential financial crimes by the Trump Organization and unidentified individuals, likely including Trump himself.

As part of the grand jury investigation, in August of 2019 Vance subpoenaed the president’s tax returns and other financial records from his personal accountant, Mazars LLP. Although this is a state grand jury proceeding, in September 2019 the president filed a lawsuit in federal district court arguing that he was absolutely immune from state criminal process while in office. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected that claim last month. Trump then filed a new complaint, alleging that the grand jury subpoena is overbroad and was issued in bad faith. Vance moved to dismiss that complaint.

The lawsuit by Trump seeks to do an end run around the secrecy protections that surround grand jury proceedings. In an ordinary case, the recipient of a grand jury subpoena is not entitled to go to court and demand details about the scope of the investigation. He may argue the subpoena is overbroad, unduly burdensome, or is otherwise improper. But he may not demand to know the inner workings of the grand jury and the details of what it is investigating. Trump was essentially using his civil lawsuit to seek discovery about the investigation and circumvent these rules.

Trump’s Complaint is Dismissed

In my earlier post, I noted the uphill battle Trump faced and argued Vance was likely to prevail. And last week, the court granted Vance’s motion to dismiss and threw out Trump’s complaint. In a 103-page opinion, Judge Victor Marrero noted that the lesson from the recent Supreme Court decision is clear:

Absent evidence that compliance with a grand jury subpoena would improperly influence or impede the executive branch’s performance of constitutional duties, the President is entitled to claim no greater shield from judicial process than any other person.

The president had not even attempted to argue that the subpoena – directed to an outside third party, not to him – would improperly interfere with his official duties. And because the judge found the subpoena was not overbroad or issued in bad faith, he ruled the president was not entitled to relief and that the grand jury investigation should be allowed to proceed.

Trump has appealed the decision.  As of this writing, the district court has denied the president’s request for a stay pending appeal, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments on Trump’s motion for a stay on September 1. If the Second Circuit denies the stay, Trump could seek intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court. But grant of a stay by any court seems very unlikely. And in the absence of a stay, Mazars has indicated it will comply with the subpoena. [Update: on September 1 the Second Circuit, in blatant disregard of my prediction, did grant a stay. Arguments on the merits will be heard on September 25.]

In sum, Trump is nearly out of legal options here. He’s managed to delay things for a year, but the New York state grand jury should have his tax returns before long. Grand jury secrecy means they will not necessarily be made public any time soon, if at all. But the possibility of state criminal charges poses a unique threat to Trump: although Attorney General William Barr has shown a remarkably corrupt willingness to protect the president, Barr has no control over a state prosecutor. And even if Trump could pardon himself on his way out of office (an unsettled question), no president can issue a pardon for state charges.  This is an area where Trump’s willingness to abuse the power of his office cannot help him.

Steve Bannon
Steve Bannon

2. The Steve Bannon Indictment

On the same day the judge dismissed Trump’s lawsuit over the Vance subpoena, there was another major legal development with potential implications for the president: federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York indicted Steve Bannon, Trump’s former campaign CEO and Senior White House advisor, and three other men for fraud and money laundering. The indictment doesn’t implicate Trump directly. But it adds to a long list of people formerly in the president’s inner circle – including former campaign chair Paul Manafort, deputy campaign chair Rick Gates, national security advisor Michael Flynn, and political advisor Roger Stone – who have faced criminal charges. For a president who claims to hire “only the best people,” it is, at a minimum, not a good look.

The Bannon indictment lays out a relatively straightforward fraud scheme. It was spearheaded by Brian Kolfage, an Air Force veteran and Arizona border wall activist. According to the indictment, in December 2018 Kolfage launched an online fundraising campaign called “We the People Build the Wall.” The claimed purpose was to raise money to donate to the U.S. government to help fund the construction of a border wall between the United States and Mexico. The initiative apparently arose after Kolfage was frustrated by the Trump administration’s inability to get significant funding for the wall from Congress. His solution: raise the money from individual donors and give it to the government. Kolfage allegedly promised donors that 100% of the donations would go towards building the wall, and that the money would be returned if that was not possible.

The fundraising campaign was a huge success and quickly raised about $20 million. The online fundraising platform then began raising questions about the campaign and whether the money could actually be donated to the U.S. government as promised. The platform told Kolfage that he had to identify a legitimate, nonprofit organization to receive the funds, or else they would be returned to the donors.

That’s where Steve Bannon allegedly came in. Shortly after he was contacted by Kolfage and became involved, Bannon and the other defendants created a new tax-exempt organization, “We Build the Wall, Inc.”, to receive the donated funds. They then allegedly set about persuading the online site, and the original donors, that the funds should be transferred to this new nonprofit. Among other things, they repeatedly claimed that 100% of the funds would go towards the building the wall and that Kolfage would not earn a penny. They also claimed the new nonprofit had guidelines and oversight in place that would prevent any of the funds from being misappropriated. In reliance on those representations, most donors agreed that their original donations could be transferred to the new nonprofit. The defendants solicited new donations as well, in the end raising a total of more than $25 million.

The indictment alleges that the defendants misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars of the donated funds to their own use. Kolfage allegedly received more than $350,000 from the organization, including a $20,000 a month salary despite repeated promises that he would take no salary from the venture. Bannon allegedly received more than $1 million. The indictment charges that the defendants disguised these payments by running them through various other nonprofit organizations and shell companies, and by falsely characterizing them as payments to vendors. Kolfage allegedly used the misappropriated funds for personal expenses such as a boat, home renovations, a luxury SUV, plastic surgery, and personal tax payments. Bannon and the other defendants allegedly used the money for travel, hotels, consumer goods, and personal credit card payments.

The indictment charges the defendants with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. Both of those crimes carry a maximum penalty of twenty years in prison. If the allegations of the indictment are true, there are no obvious defenses and it looks like a pretty tough case for Bannon and the other defendants.

William Barr
Attorney General William Barr

Why Did Barr Let It Happen?

One interesting aspect of this case is that William Barr’s Justice Department allowed it to proceed. Barr has shown little reluctance about intervening in cases that land close to the White House, including the prosecutions of Roger Stone and Michael Flynn. So why would he green light a prosecution so clearly embarrassing to the president shortly before the election?

There are a few different possibilities. One is that the Southern District of New York “went rogue” and brought the case without informing Barr. This is not impossible – there’s no law that requires the U.S. Attorney to notify the Attorney General about such a case. And the SDNY is famously independent – hence its nickname, the “Sovereign District of New York.” The fact that United States Postal Inspectors were the lead investigative agents on the case, not the FBI (which is part of Barr’s DOJ), might lend some credence to the idea that SDNY was keeping the case under wraps to avoid any interference. But on balance I find this a little hard to believe.

Another possible explanation is that Barr’s efforts to tamp down the case simply failed. When the indictment came down, many people recalled Barr’s recent effort to fire the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Geoff Berman. You may recall the odd episode where Barr issued a press release saying Berman was stepping down, which Berman promptly denied. When he did so, Berman expressed concern about ensuring the integrity of ongoing investigations within his office.

Barr had planned to replace Berman temporarily with the New Jersey U.S. Attorney, who is close to Barr, and ultimately with Jay Clayton, the head of the SEC.  They are Trump loyalists who probably could have been counted on to at least slow-walk the Bannon case until after the election, if not kill it entirely. But Berman’s refusal to go quietly ultimately ended in a deal where Barr agreed that Berman’s chief deputy, Audrey Strauss, would step in as the acting U.S. Attorney if Berman left.  And Strauss, a respected career prosecutor, is not on team Trump.

It’s true that Barr still had the power to kill the case. But it’s pretty difficult to do that against the recommendation of an independent, career U.S. attorney. Barr’s intervention would almost certainly have leaked, and that could have ended up looking even worse for the president than the indictment. At least Trump can distance himself from Bannon’s fraud; he could not have readily distanced himself from Barr’s torpedoing the case. In short, perhaps after Barr’s attempt to install “his guy” at the SDNY failed, allowing this indictment to go forward ended up being his best option.

In fairness I should mention a third possibility: perhaps Barr was just playing it straight, not interfering, and letting the chips fall where they may. Perhaps – but his track record does not entitle him to the benefit of the doubt. And there has never been a satisfactory explanation for the immediate need to remove Berman, rather than waiting for his replacement to be confirmed.

What Does the Bannon Case Mean for Trump?

As I mentioned, the case against Bannon does not directly implicate the president. But Bannon was part of Trump’s inner circle for some time. It’s possible he has information relevant to other ongoing investigations – some of which are not public and may be located in the SDNY. If so, Bannon could agree to turn on Trump and cooperate in exchange for leniency. It’s also possible, of course, that Trump could pardon Bannon – particularly after the election – in the hope that Bannon would then keep his mouth shut out of gratitude. But at this point we can only speculate.

In any event, the developments in Bannon’s case should be interesting. Absent a pardon, some kind of cooperation, or other unexpected development, it looks like there is a good chance he will be going to jail.

cover page of Senate Intelligence Committee report

3. The Senate Intelligence Committee Report

Also last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee released Volume 5 of its report of its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The report is notable not so much for any startling new revelations but because it was issued by a Senate Committee on a bipartisan basis – and that Committee is controlled by Republicans.

The Senate report confirms much of what was already in the Mueller report, although it goes into far greater detail, weighing in at nearly 1000 pages. It devotes more than 100 pages just to discussing Paul Manafort and his ties to various Russian actors, including Russian intelligence officers. Another 100+ pages are devoted to discussing the infamous Trump Tower meeting in June 2016 between members of the Trump campaign and Russians who had promised damaging information about candidate Hillary Clinton. Other people and incidents, including George Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Roger Stone, and Trump’s concealment of his efforts to build a tower in Moscow, also receive extensive discussion.

The detailed information about Manafort and his Russian ties is perhaps the most damning, although again most of it is not new. The report details Manafort’s long-time ties to Konstantin Kilimnik, who is described as a Russian intelligence officer. Among other things, while he was Trump’s campaign chairman, Manafort met with Kilimnik and shared confidential internal Trump campaign polling data. The Committee, like Mueller, could not determine exactly why Manafort shared this information. But Kilimnik was with Russian intelligence and this took place at the same time Russia intelligence officers were actively engaged in a social media campaign to influence the election. Such internal polling data would undoubtedly be extremely useful in determining where to target such social media efforts.

Two conclusions in the report deserve to be highlighted.  First, when it comes to Manafort:

The Committee found that Manafort’s presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign. Taken as a whole, Manafort’s high level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services . . . represented a grave counterintelligence threat.  

Second, when it came to the Committee’s ability to investigate and obtain information from the White House, it noted that the president had made expansive, unwarranted assertions of executive privilege:

The Committee did not anticipate . . . the multitude of novel and unprecedented potential executive privilege claims from the [White House Counsel’s Office] on behalf of members of President-elect Trump’s Transition Team and the Transition itself, for communications before Trump took office. The Committee was surprised by these assertions because they were made inconsistently and because they have no basis in law.

In short, the Republican-led committee agrees the Russia investigation was not a “hoax;” actions of the Trump campaign represented a “grave counterintelligence threat.” And the White House, following a pattern it has exhibited in many other investigations (including the Mueller investigation and the impeachment proceedings) essentially stonewalled the investigation, making it impossible fully to determine what had happened.

Trump and Putin shaking hands

But Was it Collusion?

After 900-plus pages of bipartisan factual analysis, the report concludes with brief statements of “additional views” by groups of Republican and Democratic Senators. The Republicans stated (in bold italics, to make sure you don’t miss it), “the Committee found no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government in its efforts to meddle in the election.”  The Democratic Senators disagreed, concluding that “this is what collusion looks like.”  In other words, the two political parties largely agree on the facts, but disagree over whether they prove “collusion.”

This is a silly, semantic debate. As I’ve argued elsewhere, and as Mueller also noted in his report, collusion is not a legal term. You can define it however you like. If you equate the term collusion with a criminal conspiracy, then it’s true that Mueller – and the Committee – did not find sufficient evidence to prove such a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, if you define collusion as working cooperatively to achieve a common goal,  then there is evidence of collusion all over the place. As the Democrats noted in their separate statement:

The Committee’s Report clearly shows that Trump and his Campaign were not mere bystanders in this attack – they were active participants. They coordinated their activities with the releases of the hacked Russian data, magnified the effects of a known Russian campaign, and welcomed the mutual benefit from the Russian activity.

The bottom line is that a Republican-led Senate Committee has found that the Trump campaign had extensive contacts with Russian individuals including Russian intelligence officers, shared confidential information with them, welcomed Russian efforts to help Trump win the election, built a campaign and messaging strategy around the release of the Democratic emails stolen by Russia, and then failed to cooperate fully in the Senate investigation of those activities.

That should be – or should have been — a major scandal. But again, none of it is really new, and most of it was discussed in Volume I of the Mueller report. The addition of this Senate report is unlikely to have much of an impact on a public that has already largely absorbed these facts and formed its opinions.

But if nothing else, perhaps the bipartisan report will help to undermine Trump’s constant refrain about the “Russia hoax” and the deep state “witch hunt.” Even his own party agrees that the Russia allegations were not a hoax; there was extensive evidence of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia and that those ties posed a grave threat. There was a more than sufficient basis for the FBI to investigate. The fact that no provable criminal charges resulted does not mean the investigation itself was unwarranted – particularly considering how difficult the White House and others made it for investigators to get the full story. And the fact that the Trump campaign’s conduct ultimately may not have been criminal does not mean that it was okay.

Stephanie Clifford, a/k/a Stormy Daniels

Postscript: More Stormy Weather

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention a final legal development last week: we learned on Friday that Trump was recently ordered to pay more than $44,000 in legal fees to adult-film actress Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy Daniels. The fees were from a lawsuit she filed over a non-disclosure agreement with Trump. She signed the agreement in 2016, accepting $130,000 in exchange for her promise not to discuss an affair she had with Trump from 2006-2007.  A California judge agreed that Daniels had prevailed in her lawsuit to void the agreement, and ordered Trump to pay her attorney’s fees.  

One of the charges that Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to was a campaign finance charge related to this “hush money” payment to Clifford, which he said he made at Trump’s direction.  Possible state financial crimes related to this hush money payment were part of the original basis for Vance’s grand jury investigation in New York. Thus, in the span of a few days last week, Trump’s legal problems came full circle.

All in all, a really bad week.

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