Mueller Considered Prosecuting Trump Tower Meeting Participants: Report
Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner were considered for campaign finance violations connected with the Russian government dirt on Hillary Clinton that led to the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower.
April 18, 2019 at 12:42 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Donald Trump Jr.'s enthusiastic response to securing potential dirt on Hillary Clinton offered by a Russian government supportive of his father's then-presidential campaign was reviewed for possible criminal charges by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office, the report, made public in a redacted version Thursday, indicated.
Mueller's team found the series of events—beginning with Trump Jr.'s email featuring the phrase “love it” regarding the possibility of getting Clinton material, and leading to a meeting that included top members of Trump's campaign and officials with connections to the Russian government at Trump Tower in June 2016—supported “an inference” that the campaign anticipated getting damaging information on Clinton “from official Russian sources that could assist candidate Trump's electoral prospect,” the report stated.
The report states that Mueller's team felt the campaign's actions “could implicate” campaign members' violation of two separate federal laws. The first was a ban on contributions and donations by foreign nationals, which the special counsel's office said evidence “supports the inference” that Trump Jr., then-campaign executive Paul Manafort, and the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner were aware that the purpose of the Trump Tower meeting was to accept “helpful information to the campaign from Russian sources.”
Additionally, the office considered whether the evidence could establish a conspiracy to violate the foreign contributions ban. Mueller's office found “reasonable arguments” that the information promised to the campaign could constitute a thing of value, even if it was only a promise as such. However, the office said it declined to pursue criminal charges for two specific reasons.
First, the office “did not obtain admissible evidence” that would meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the campaign officials acted with general knowledge about the illegality of their conduct. Second, the office expected it to be difficult to similarly prove that the value of the promised information “exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation” of $2,000 for a criminal violation and $25,000 for a felony punishment.
The special counsel's office explained that a number of authorities, including the Federal Election Commission, would support the view that campaign-related opposition research handed over to a campaign for the purposes of influencing an election's outcome “could constitute a contribution to which the foreign-source ban could apply.”
However, the report states, “no judicial decision has treated the voluntary provision of uncompensated opposition research of similar information as a thing of value that could amount to a contribution under campaign-finance law.”
Mueller's office said such an interpretation had the potential to go beyond the foreign-source ban to raise First Amendment questions. As it was “uncertain how courts would resolve those issues,” the special counsel's office decided, for these and other reasons, not to pursue charges due to the uncertainties that could be encountered prosecuting the campaign officials.
Similarly, the special counsel's office found it would be a challenge to prove that the participants “had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful,” making it difficult to prove they willfully broke the law.
Spokespeople for Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
A spokeswoman for the DOJ also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'New Circumstances': Winston & Strawn Seek Expedited Relief in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute read5th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
5 minute readDOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250