Francisco Goya, Saturn Devouring His Son (1823) (detail). Located in the Prado, Madrid, Spain.
INTRODUCTION
What kind of monster steals from a Charity?
A monster of the most gruesome sort. And what kind of monster commits Treason? Dante reserved his innermost circle of hell for traitors, for the betrayers. What kind of father devours his son, ensuring that he take the fall in father’s place? These are just a few of the crimes of Trump. Some were committed in such a brazen way as to already be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Others require reasoned assumptions, which I will point out.
For example, is it reasonable to assume that Donald Trump, Jr. told his father about the Russians helping him to win the election? I think it would be unreasonable not to do so. But, I will point out these assumptions as they arise in our discussion. In a trial, the jury is almost always instructed that they can make reasonable inferences from the evidence. Federal Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 3.04 provides:
You are permitted to draw from facts that you find to have been proven such reasonable inferences as you believe are justified in the light of common sense and personal experience.
I believe that there is substantial evidence that Trump committed the following crimes or impeachable offenses: Treason, Conspiracy, Extortion, Bribery, Pay-to-Play, Abuse of Power, Money Laundering, Tax Evasion, Accessory after the Fact, Bank Fraud, Wire Fraud, Witness Tampering, Misprison a Felony, Obstruction of Justice, Violations of the Corrupt Practices Act, the Emoluments Clause, United States Sanctions and Campaign Finance Laws, as well as Embezzlement from a Charity.
What I will do here is state the name of the crime, the elements that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, necessary assumptions if any, and a concise statement of the facts. Many of the Crimes of Trump listed below have a link to another website with additional commentary, case law, etcetera, which I have set up. That offsite cache is free of pop-ups and advertisements.
We have a lot to cover, so let’s get started.
1. BRIBERY.
The Government must prove these elements of Bribery pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 666, although reasonable inferences can be drawn:
Whoever corruptly gives anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an agent of an organization in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving anything of value of $5,000 or more.
A spokeswoman for Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi told the media that their office was reviewing the Trump University matter and deciding whether or not to pursue a criminal case. Six days later, Trump’s charity donated $25,000.00 to a political action committee formed to obtain donations for Bondi’s reelection.
Bondi did not pursue criminal charges against Trump University.
The reasonable inference here is that Trump corruptly intended to influence the prosecutorial discretion of the Florida Attorney General. If there is a record of one communication between Trump and Bondi or Trump and the Bondi PAC during those six days (or shortly thereafter), the crime is basically proven. For additional discussion, please see this website.
2. EMBEZZLEMENT/CHARITY FRAUD.
At this time, the State of New York is proceeding with a civil case against Trump and his family for his many charity frauds. This doesn’t mean it cannot become a criminal case in the future. Moreover, it certainly doesn’t mean it cannot be part of impeachment proceedings.
Marc S. Owens, a former head of the IRS’s nonprofit division, called the suit “an extraordinary catalogue of how not to run a private foundation. There’s little else [Trump] could have done that would have made it worse.”
It is most likely that all of these crimes occurred before Trump assumed office. Does the High Crimes and Misdemeanors Clause of the Constitution allow for offenses committed prior to federal political or judicial office? The short answer is yes. The long answer is still yes, and it can be found on my offsite cache of relevant materials, here.
New York would charge these crimes under their embezzlement/larceny statute, which requires the Government to prove the following elements per Section 155.05 of the New York Penal Law:
1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself ... he wrongfully takes ... such property from an owner thereof.
2. Larceny includes a wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding of another's property, with the intent prescribed in subdivision one of this section, committed in any of the following ways:
(a) By conduct heretofore defined or known as ... embezzlement….
There would be a number of counts in the embezzlement from a Charity article of impeachment. One of the counts would involve Trump embezzling $100,000.00 from his Charity to settle a private lawsuit involving a fifty-foot-tall flagpole at Mar-a-Lago. This is one of those High Crimes and Misdemeanors that is already proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as Trump wrote out and then initialed his own confession:
Attribution: WAPO
The “Allen W” referenced in Trump’s handwriting is Allen H. Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s CFO for many years. He also cut many of the checks for the Trump Foundation. For additional information about embezzlement and Charity fraud, please see my offsite material here.
3. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
There is a gold-plated case against Donald Trump for Obstruction of Justice. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has this in his back pocket to use at any time. The case can be proved right now.
Because, you see, we have a confession.
There are many federal statutes dealing with Obstruction of Justice. The statute that is most likely to be used for the first count of Obstruction of Justice is 18 U.S.C. § 1505. The statute in relevant part:
“Whoever corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, …
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years….”
On May 9, 2017, Trump fired James Comey, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Subsequently, Trump confessed to the crime of Obstruction of Justice in a nationally televised interview with Lester Holt of NBC. Here is that May 11 interview:
Of course, there are boatloads of additional evidence that would be relevant to the Defendant’s motives, including this tweet from the day before the Comey firing:
Then we have the firing of Andrew McCabe, who had started a probe of Trump for obstruction of justice before Special Counsel Mueller was retained.
Trump obstructed the obstruction of justice investigation!
Then, Trump obstructed the obstruction of justice investigation with more obstruction of justice by firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions and appointing Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker. For additional discussion of Obstruction of Justice charges, please see additional material here.
4. TREASON.
The Constitution provides this about Treason:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”
U.S. CONST. Art. III, Sec. 3 (emphasis added). The “or” in that provision of the Constitution is important. It gives you two definitions for treason. One of the definitions applies, the other does not. No one is suggesting that Trump levied war against America. The definition that applies describes treason as “giving aid and comfort” to enemies of the United States.
Before you say that Russia is not an enemy of the United States, please review the 2006 indictment for Treason of Adam Pearlman in the Southern Division of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
As for Trump’s treason, the basic facts involve Trump’s son, son-in-law and campaign manager meeting on June 9, 2016 with Russian agents in one part of a conspiracy to manipulate an American election and destroy the foundations for democracy in the United States. Since that date, the Trump administration has taken numerous actions that aid Russia, including the easing of sanctions. For additional evidence of Treason and the legal arguments for and against application of the charge to Trump, please see the off-site material here.
5. ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT.
The next potential article in the Articles of Impeachment flows directly from the Treason described in the preceding paragraph, but it is not dependent upon it. Even if there is no article for Treason, there will certainly be one for Accessory After the Fact.
The Federal statute for Accessory After the Fact provides as follows:
Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.
18 U.S.C. § 3. On July 8, 2017, Defendant Trump provided a false story to cover up for his son’s meeting with the Russian agents in Trump Tower. That cover up was intended “to hinder or prevent the apprehension, trial or punishment” of his son and son-in-law.
The emails have been authenticated by Donald Trump, Jr. himself. The Defendant’s act of providing a cover-up story cannot be proved by newspaper article. At least one of the “multiple people with knowledge of the deliberations,” as reported by the Washington Post, will have to testify. Our reasonable assumption for this count is that if the Washington Post could extract this information from the people on Air Force One who witnessed the attempted cover up, then Special Counsel Robert Mueller has that evidence as well.
6 EXTORTION.
The commission of extortion by a federal official is a crime under the United States Code. The norm is for politicians to offer concessions to get a vote. What the Defendant did, through his Interior Secretary, is not normal. Trump has threatened to take away things. The statutory citation is 18 U.S.C. 41 § 872. It provides as follows:
“Whoever, being an officer ... of the United States … under color or pretense of office … commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both….”
Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska steadfastly voted against TrumpCare. At 4:13 AM on July 26, 2017, Trump sent this tweet:
Within hours after the tweet was sent, “Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke reportedly called Murkowski and fellow Alaskan Sen. Dan Sullivan to say their state could run into trouble with the Trump administration.” According to Senator Sullivan, Defendant Zinke threatened Senator Murkowski and the entire State of Alaska as follows: “I fear that the strong economic growth, pro-energy, pro-mining, pro-jobs and personnel from Alaska who are part of those policies are going to stop." For cases and argument in support of this count of Extortion, see the offsite material here.
As a final note, this extortion could also be raised in Articles of Impeachment under the heading of Abuse of Power.
7. WITNESS RETALIATION.
Another form of Obstruction of Justice has its own statute at 18 U.S. Code § 1513 - Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant. In relevant part, it provides:
(e) Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any
person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any
person, for providing to a
law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(f) Whoever conspires to commit any
offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the
offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
On March 20, 2017, FBI Director James Comey confirmed during congressional testimony that his agency was investigating collusion and conspiracy between the Trump campaign and agents of the Russian government. While he was testifying, Trump tweeted that the Intelligence Community has opined that “Russia did not influence the electoral process.” Comey was still being questioned by the House Committee, and a Member of Congress asked him if the tweet was true. Comey said it was not.
Director Comey also established that Trump’s Obama-wiretapping-at-Trump-Tower allegations were false during additional testimony before Congress. A few days before he was fired in May 2017, Comey requested additional funding for the Trump-Russia probe.
8. PAY-TO-PLAY.
These are essentially additional bribery charges. The difference between these and the Pam Bondi situation is that Trump is now the Payee and not the Payor. Also, a different Federal statute applies:
(b) Whoever …
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any
official act; …
shall be fined under this title not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
18 U.S.C. § 201.
The giant pharmaceutical company Novartis paid $1,300,000.00 to Michael Cohen for exactly nothing. AT&T paid $200,000.00 in four installments to Cohen (later acknowledged to be $600,000.00 iin total), and the American subsidiary working for one of the richest men in Russia paid him nearly half a million dollars. Pay-to-Play is essentially bribery except that it involves a Government official taking bribes from companies who need to kill or pass legislation or loosened oversight or approval of a merger.
There are assumptions, or as I like to call them, reasonable inferences here. Since we don’t have Special Counsel Mueller’s evidence, we don’t know what he may have that proves that Cohen shared the wealth with Trump. Did the president get his beak wet? I’m positive that he did, but it is still an assumption. Were those companies and that government given any assurances that their peculiar legislative and regulatory needs would be met? Again, that is an assumption.
It is a lot of money to pay the president’s personal lawyer with no guarantees involved. For more information about Pay-to-Play, please see the offsite material here.
9. FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT.
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has two primary components. One deals with accounting requirements that are in place to provide transparency. Having reviewed Trump’s domestic accounting for his Charity and his continuous efforts at Tax Evasion, this will be an area of concern for the Trump Organization. The other prong of the FCPA is what we will deal with here, as it is sexier, and some of the evidence is in the public record. This prong of the FCPA prohibits bribing a foreign official. A prosecution must prove the following elements:
1. An American business (or “domestic concern”);
2. Made a payment or offered to make a payment;
3. To a foreign government official;
4. With a corrupt motive;
5. To (a) influence that official, or (b) secure an improper advantage, or (c) induce the official to use his or her influence to affect an official act or decision;
6. In order to assist in obtaining business.
See 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1. According to a CNN report, Michael Cohen and Felix Sater, while working on the Moscow Trump Tower project, considered offering Vladimir Putin a $50,000,000.00 penthouse in the building. “Cohen, who was then-candidate Trump’s attorney had discussed the idea with a representative of Putin’s press secretary.” The assumption here is that Trump’s lawyer told Trump that he had offered to spend $50,000,000.00 of Trump’s money.
Back in 2012, Trump called the FCPA “horrible” and “ridiculous,” claiming that it made it difficult for American businesses to do business in foreign countries. This goes to intent and motive. For additional evidence and discussion about the FCPA, please see the offsite materials here.
10. VIOLATIONS OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) is quite clear that an individual cannot donate more than $2,700.00 to a candidate for federal office during an election cycle, that corporations cannot donate to an individual candidate for federal office, and that foreign nationals cannot donate to Presidential inaugural committees. There are three felony counts that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt based upon public information.
Stanford Law Professor and former Federal prosecutor David Sklansky takes over from here:
The charges relate to secret payments Cohen facilitated to two women during the presidential election campaign in 2016, to keep them from disclosing their affairs with Donald Trump. One of the women was the adult film actress Stephanie Clifford, who works under the name Stormy Daniels. She was paid $130,000. The other woman was the model Karen McDougal; she received $150,000. The payment to Karen McDougal came from the National Enquirer, with Cohen’s encouragement and assistance. Cohen paid Clifford himself, and then got disguised reimbursements from the Trump Organization.
In effect, the payments to Stephanie Clifford and Karen McDougal were contributions to Donald Trump’s campaign: they were hush money designed to help Donald Trump get elected. And that violated campaign finance laws, because corporations aren’t allowed to contribute directly to presidential campaigns, and individuals can’t contribute more than $2,700.
That covers two of the already established violations of Federal Campaign law, but what about the third? That investigation is heating up right now.
In just three hours time, while I was writing this up a couple of days ago, the New York Times, the Hill and the San Francisco Chronicle reported on a new investigation into the use of money donated by foreign nationals to the Trump Presidential Inaugural fund. The person who ran the fund was Rick Gates. One Republican lobbyist has already pleaded guilty to arranging for a Ukrainian oligarch to purchase $50,000.00 worth of tickets to the inaugural balls. The current investigation “focuses on whether people from Mideast nations — including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — used straw donors to disguise additions to the funds.”
Some media and Republicans have downplayed these violations. Yet, they affect whether we have fair and transparent elections. Moreover, each violation of these Campaign Finance laws is punishable by fine and up to five years in prison. For additional discussion, please see the offsite material here.
11. VIOLATIONS OF U.S. SANCTIONS
This could be another Article of Impeachment with multiple counts. Based upon public information only, it appears that Trump or the Trump Organization have done business with at least three U.S.-sanctioned entities or people. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in the Treasury Department maintains easily searchable lists of individuals or business concerns with whom you cannot do business. Their FAQ states:
As part of its enforcement efforts, OFAC publishes a list of individuals and companies owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, targeted countries. It also lists individuals, groups, and entities, such as terrorists and narcotics traffickers designated under programs that are not country-specific. Collectively, such individuals and companies are called "Specially Designated Nationals" or "SDNs." Their assets are blocked and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from dealing with them.
You can find their searchable list here. I wanted to find out how easy it was, so I typed in just the last name “Torshin.” This is what I got:
Alexander Porfiryevich Torshin is a sanctioned individual from Russia. His name popped right up. Yet, it seems that Torshin, Maria Butina, the NRA and Trump did business. And the business was to get Trump elected. These can be very perilous crimes for defendants. OFAC uses a sliding scale to determine how egregious the offense was. If the offense was minor and self-disclosed, it might be a slap on the wrist. But if the offense was intentional and hidden from the Government, the penalties could include a fine of $1,000,000.00 and twenty years in prison. For additional material about these crimes, including how Trump and the Trump Organization conducted business with the sanctioned Russian VTB bank and Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, please see the offsite material here.
12. TAX EVASION.
The Trump Empire grew fast and large because of tax evasion. And by “Trump Empire,” I mean the businesses and revenue-generating properties owned and managed by Fred Trump. The family business was tax evasion. The New York Times ran an astonishing story spanning decades of Trump tax fraud and tax evasion.
The New York Times has proven that Trump was a co-conspirator in a scheme to devalue his father’s property from about $900,000,000.00 to only $41,400,000.00. Those crimes—and there were numerous crimes—saved the Trumps hundreds of millions of dollars that would have gone to the United States Treasury.
The breadth of the sprawling tax fraud and evasion is astonishing, but the sit-up-and-take-notice message from the NYT story was this: “Allen H. Weisselberg ... had worked for Fred Trump for two decades before becoming his son’s chief financial officer.” Weisselberg has been granted immunity and is supposedly cooperating with prosecutors.
There is a reason why we haven’t seen the Trump tax returns.
The assumptions made in this count are that Trump continued the decades-long family business of tax evasion, devaluing businesses and properties for tax purposes, while increasing their values for mortgage purposes, paying fake business expenses, while padding other expenses, and that Allen Weisselberg is cooperating with prosecutors in an effective manner. I believe that these are reasonable assumptions. For more discussion on the topic of Tax Evasion, please see the offsite materials here.
13. MONEY LAUNDERING.
Steve Bannon provided recorded interviews to author Michael Wolff in which he said, “This is all about money laundering.” He went on to note that the Special Counsel’s “path to ... Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr. and Jared Kushner, [and] … [i]t goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner stuff." According to the Department of Justice Manual, a prosecutor must prove the following elements of Money Laundering:
- Defendant knew that the money for the transaction was illegally derived in some way;
- A financial transaction affecting interstate commerce took place; and
- Defendant acted with intent to allow the concealment of illegal money or avoid tax laws.
18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1). Another subsection deals with international money laundering, and it is located at § 1956(a)(2). It requires proof that the money was transferred across international borders. Without the knowledge that the Special Counsel and his team possesses, most people have pointed to Trump’s sale of Maison de l’Amitie in 2008, at the height of the real estate bust, to Russian billionaire Dimitry Rybolovlev for more than twice what Trump had purchased it a few years earlier.
Then, there are multiple purchases of condos in New York buildings by Russian nationals, who paid cash, or who paid on behalf of anonymous shell corporations. However, at this time, we know nothing about those purchasers, the form of their payments, or the other relevant factors in the deals. I think there is a much more likely Money Laundering case that the Special Prosecutor has pursued involving a name very familiar to us, which I will describe in the offsite materials here.
14. WIRE FRAUD.
Wire and mail fraud have been crimes in the United States since 1872. The wire fraud statute provides as follows:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme ... to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses … transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire … in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings … or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 1343. If the fraud involves a bank, the fine can be one million dollars and the prison sentence 30 years.
I’m not sure where to begin with this one.
Wire fraud can likely be a pendent charge for every tax evasion, embezzlement from a Charity, bribery, Pay-to-Play, tax fraud, bank fraud and money laundering count against Trump. There could conceivably be a hundred or more counts of wire fraud depending upon the evidence obtained by the Special Counsel.
15. BANK FRAUD.
18 U.S.C. § 1344 provides that,
Whoever knowingly executes or attempts to execute, a scheme —
(1) to defraud a financial institution; or
(2) to obtain any of the moneys … owned by, or under the control of, a financial institution, by means of false pretenses, representations or promises;
shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
Of the eight counts that the jury found Paul Manafort guilty, two were Bank Fraud charges. He was tripped up when the Government offered immunity to the accountants and bank professionals and tax preparers who assisted him on the money side. They testified against him at trial.
Trump’s Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg has been granted immunity and is reportedly cooperating with the Government. It is public information that Trump had a hard time securing credit in the United States over recent years, so he obtained what is reportedly a hefty $300,000,000.00 loan from Deutsche Bank in Germany. Those loan papers and all continuing financial statements are, no doubt, in the hands of the Special Counsel.
The assumption that I make here is that, like his father and he conspired to do for decades, Trump continued to do over the last ten years. The New York Times article that proved the decades-long span of Tax Evasion and Tax Fraud also proved instances of Bank Fraud.
16. VIOLATIONS OF THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE.
A Government official cannot line his or her own pockets with outside deals or gifts from foreign nationals. It is such an important concept, the Founding Fathers included it in the Constitution as the Emoluments Clause. The Clause provides as follows:
[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under the[] [United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
U.S. CONST. Art. 1, Sec. 9, Cl. 8. The major issues involve foreign donations to the inaugural fund and use of the Trump International Hotel in Washington by foreign delegations, especially the Saudis. Then, there are other business promotions and agreements that endlessly occur as Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump parade around the globe making deals, although they ostensibly have some “Office of Trust” in the Trump administration. Trump either has not severed ties with his business, or he has done so half-heartedly (and unconstitutionally).
According to the Washington Post, Saudi lobbyists bought five hundred nights at Trump International hotel within a month of Trump’s election:
Using documents and information from conversations with organizers the Washington Post learned the lobbyists were reserving the hotel rooms to provide U.S. military veterans a free place to stay so they could help lobby against a law the Saudis opposed. “At first, lobbyists for the Saudis put the veterans up in Northern Virginia,” the Post reports. “Then, in December 2016, they switched most of their business to the Trump International Hotel in downtown Washington. In all, the lobbyists spent more than $270,000 to house six groups of visiting veterans at the Trump hotel, which Trump still owns.
The assumptions here are that Trump still owns a stake in these properties or a stake in their income streams. The Washington Post seems to think he still does. For additional discussion of Violations of the Emoluments Clause, including an eye-opening look at the numerous Trump violations while he was President-elect (an “Office of Trust”), please see the off-site materials here.
17. TAMPERING WITH WITNESSES OR INFORMANTS.
Another of the Obstruction of Justice statutes deals with the time-honored mob tradition of tampering with witnesses or informants. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 provides:
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to —
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to —
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
…
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
A president has the constitutional power to offer a pardon and a common law-derived Executive Privilege that allows the president to shield others from having to provide documents or testimonies about conversations had with the president, especially if those conversations were part of the “deliberative process,” or related to national security. The assumption is that Trump has corrupted these powers because Trump corrupts everything.
Did he corruptly dangle a pardon before Manafort or Flynn or Stone or Cohen or others?
Through his lawyers, did he corruptly use Executive Privilege to silence witnesses, when what the testimony entailed did not entail deliberative processes and only entailed aspects of a crime?
18. CAMPAIGN COORDINATION LAW VIOLATIONS.
In 2015, a Republican political operative by the name of Tyler Harber became the first person in the world to do something: He was convicted of violating the Federal Election Commission Act as it relates to campaign coordination. The law states that a candidate and outside groups cannot coordinate their efforts and spending during a political campaign. Harber pleaded guilty to that crime.
During the 2016 election, the Trump Campaign and the NRA did something that was extraordinary. They had people placing ad buys for both entities. They used the same people. They paid for ads on the same platforms. There is almost no way there could not be coordination of campaigns in that situation.
“American Media & Advocacy Group bought ads for the Trump campaign, which directed $74.2 million to the firm for that purpose, according to FEC records. The NRA used Red Eagle Media Group, the trade name for a firm called National Media Research, Planning and Placement. The two firms share the same address, according to the complaint, and the same employees.”
There is already at least one complaint on file with the FEC for these violations, but this can also form the basis for a multi-count Article of Impeachment. The way the defendants went about their actions not only establishes a massive violation of campaign finance laws, but also guilty consciences, as they used different names for the same employees to cover their tracks.
19. FEC VIOLATION: PERSONAL USE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.
It has been publicly reported that the Trump Organization over-billed for the use of the Trump International Hotel in Washington for the Inaugural festivities. At a minimum, the over-charged amounts represent personal use of funds that were donated to the Inaugural Committee.
Additionally, the Trump Plaza has been paid $42,000.00 by the Trump 2020 campaign for rent since November 2017. The thing is, Forbes magazine has discovered that no campaign activities have occurred in that building:
Given how the president’s Trump Plaza LLC has allegedly taken $42,000 in campaign funds since November 2017 despite the lack of indication of any ongoing campaign activity, Alexander documented how Forbes monitored the business’ retail space in November for close to 14 uninterrupted hours.
“By our count, seven people went in and out of the twin, four-story brownstones over the course of the day. One refused to talk, and six said they had not seen any sign of the campaign in the buildings. Nor had a man behind the front desk at Trump Plaza,” Alexander recalled.
This is money that went straight into Trump’s pocket. Theft. Stealing. And it is exactly what Fred Trump taught him to do. Back in Section 12 “Tax Evasion,” we briefly discussed the Trump schemes to illegally pare down their taxes. Many of those schemes involved fake payments and fake invoices and fake companies to receive the fake payments and generate the fake invoices.
For additional discussion, please see the offsite material here.
20. CONSPIRACY.
Every crime described in this story that involved more than one person almost certainly raises the specter of criminal liability for conspiracy. Not collusion. Conspiracy. The federal statute for conspiracy provides:
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 371. Trump is all but convicted of two conspiracies involving Michael Cohen and AMI Paper, Inc. Both of those cases relate to conspiracies to commit campaign finance violations against the United States, and we know that in both cases payments were made, so there was at least “one act to effect the object of the conspiracy.”
21. MISPRISION A FELONY.
This crime is one of the first created in the United States. You can tell that it is very, very old because it is Section Four of the Criminal Code, and it doesn’t have a bunch of letters behind it. It is just Section Four. Misprision a Felony is a Good Samaritan law for people who dislike crime. The elements are as follows:
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority in the United States, shall be fined under this title or be imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 4. We have absolute proof that Trump knew of at least two felonies “cognizable by a court of the United States” because Michael Cohen and the National Enquirer’s David Pecker pleaded guilty to them, and they acknowledged that they were in the presence of Trump when hatching the crimes.
We can also assume that Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting beforehand. He certainly knew about it afterwards, as his botched cover-up demonstrates. That would be nine years in federal prison just from what we now know about Trump and this good old stalwart law.
22. PERJURY.
It is very, very hard to believe, but I believe that the most speculative crime on our list of the crimes of Trump—at least at this time—is perjury. What Trump has said during speeches, media interviews, in tweets or press conferences cannot form the basis for a perjury charge.
On the other hand, Trump has submitted sworn answers to written questions. It is possible that he perjured himself. However, the answers to the Special Counsel’s questions were vetted by multiple lawyers, not all of them as obtuse as Rudy Giuliani. I expect that if there was a possibility of an answer being inconsistent with somebody else’s answer, his lawyers objected to the question, or Trump answered, “I don’t recall,” or both.
Most likely both.
This changes, however, if Special Counsel Mueller goes to court and requests that the judge order more complete answers, the judge holds a hearing on any objections levied by Trump’s lawyers, or if the Special Counsel is able to obtain sworn videotaped testimony or Grand Jury testimony. I believe that the law is clear that Special Counsel Mueller can force Trump to sit for a deposition.
These are the elements of the crime of perjury:
Whoever —
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly … willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any … statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall … be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both….
18 U.S.C. § 1621. Subsection (1) above would deal with any Trump deposition or grand jury testimony if either occurs. Subsection (2) and specifically the reference to “1746 of title 28” deal with Trump’s written answers to the Special Counsel’s questions.
CONCLUSION
I have long said that this will be the lengthiest Indictment/Information in history, although it may take the form of several reports to Congress, testimonies before subcommittees and Articles of Impeachment. Many of the alleged crimes listed above will have multiple counts. Additionally, there will be other crimes that we will hear about for the first time when the Special Counsel, the SDNY and the District of Columbia and Virginia and other offices provide their reports or testimonies to Congress.
The fallout will continue for decades.
I have also long said that every presidential scandal in the history of the United States of America, when combined, equals .4 Trump, with the full knowledge that sixty-nine people were indicted because of the web of corruption we call Watergate, another fourteen were indicted in the Iran-Contra scandal, and there were multiple convictions related to the Teapot Dome Scandal.
