The Mueller Report provides a detailed picture of the wide variety of crimes investigated by the Special Counsel’s Office, many of which resulted in indictments or guilty pleas, and a strong suggestion that Congress review the legality of obstructive acts. The investigation did not exonerate Trump.
The report covers a broad array of illegal actions, including computer intrusion/hacking, trafficking and fencing stolen property, unlawfully acting on behalf of a foreign government within the United States, campaign finance laws violations, perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy. Volume I of Mueller’s report addresses Russian interference in the election and that country’s interactions with the Trump campaign. Volume II focuses on Trump’s response to the investigation and whether the actions of Trump and others constituted obstruction of justice as frequently has been suggested.
Here are the Top 10 crimes considered by Mueller, from least serious to most damaging to the fabric of the Nation.
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE: CRIMES 10 THROUGH SIX
Number 10. Computer-Intrusion (18 U. S. C. §1030) and Aggravated Identity Theft (18 U. S. C. §1028A)
Russian interference in the U. S. presidential election was the centerpiece of Mueller’s investigation. Despite repeated denials by the White House, the intelligence community and Mueller found undeniable proof that Russian military intelligence officers hacked into computer and email accounts of organizations, employees, and volunteers supporting the Clinton campaign. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic National Committee also were hacked. Hundreds of thousands of documents were stolen in these efforts and later released through online persons and, famously, through WikiLeaks. The timing of the leaks were intended to interfere with the presidential election in favor of Donald Trump.
The Special Counsel’s Office filed an indictment in July 2018, charging conspiracy to hack into the computers of individuals and entities involved in the 2016 election to commit violations of 1030(a)(2)(C), which requires proof that the defendants: i) intentionally ii) accessed without authorization a protected computer and iii) thereby obtained information, and 1030(a)(5)(A), which requires proof that the defendants intentionally caused unauthorized damage on a protected computer.
Number 9. National Stolen Property Act (18 U. S. C. §§2314 and 2315)
Although ultimately ruled out, the Special Counsel’s Office also considered whether the post-hacking dissemination of material by the Russians constituted trafficking or fencing stolen property in violation of the National Stolen Property Act. Violations occur when an individual: i) unlawfully transport or cause to be transported in interstate or foreign commerce; ii) goods, wares, merchandise, securities, or money having a value of $5,000 or more which are stolen, converted or taken by fraud; and iii) knowing the same to be stolen, converted or taken by fraud. Case law from lower circuits specifically has excluded application of the NSPA to electronic or digital data, finding that “goods, wares, or merchandise” is limited to tangible items. Mueller’s team believed this interpretation would be a roadblock to any prosecution under this statute.
Number 8. Foreign Agents Registrations Act (22 U. S. C. §611 et seq.) and Agents of Foreign Governments (18 U. S. C. §951)
Mueller’s team assessed potential liability of individuals within the Trump campaign under federal statutes regulating actions on behalf of, or work done for, a foreign government. The Special Counsel’s investigation uncovered extensive evidence that before they ran Trump’s presidential campaign, Paul Manafort and Richard Gates worked as agents of the Ukrainian government by lobbying United States officials on behalf of Ukraine without disclosing their relationship with the foreign government or reporting the tens of millions of dollars they were paid by the government and political parties of Ukraine. Both Manafort and Gates pled guilty to this conduct in prosecutions in the District of Columbia.
The Special Counsel’s Office also considered whether Manafort and other Trump campaign officials, notably George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, acted as agents of the Russian government or at its direction, control or request during the relevant period. Ultimately, the investigation did not yield sufficient evidence to prove these charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Individuals acting on behalf of a foreign government in the United States are required to register their presence with the Attorney General. The Foreign Agents Registrations Act makes it illegal to act as an agent of a foreign principal by engaging in political activities in the United States and Section 951 of Title 18 is aimed at non-political activities of such agents. A criminal violation of the FARA occurs when the agent willfully engages in political actions on behalf of a foreign government without registering. Section 951, on the other hand, does not require willfulness and knowledge of the notification requirement is not an element of the offense.
Number 7. Campaign Finance Laws (52 U. S. C. §30109(d)(1)(A))
The infamous Trump Tower meeting between Trump campaign officials, including Donald Trump, Jr. and Jared Kushner, and Russian officials was the centerpiece of Mueller’s focus on whether a violation of campaign finance laws occurred. In an email exchange before the meeting, the Russians offered the Trump campaign “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to [Trump].”
Observing that reasonable arguments could be made that this information constituted a “thing of value” within the meaning of the campaign finance laws, Mueller ultimately determined that a conviction likely could not be sustained because insufficient admissible evidence was uncovered that the Trump campaign officials acted “willfully” with knowledge of the illegality of their conduct. In addition, prosecutors believed they would encounter difficulty in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the information was valued at either $2,000 or $25,000 so as to invoke criminal liability. A “knowing and willful” violation of the campaign finance laws involving an aggregate of $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony. Amounts between $2,000 and $25,000 per year is a misdemeanor.
Number 6. False Statements (18 U. S. C. §1001) and Perjury (18 U. S. C. §1623)
Three high-ranking Trump officials, George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen, were found to have lied to investigators in connection with the Special Counsel’s investigation. Mueller’s team considered similar charges in connection with statements made by Jeff Sessions about his interactions with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the Republican National Convention in July 2016. The evidence was determined to be insufficient to prove that Sessions was willfully untruthful in his answers. According to the report, the Office determined not to pursue charges against Sessions “consistent with the Principles of Federal Prosecution.”
Knowingly and willfully making any materially false or fraudulent statement or representation in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch is a crime. Testifying falsely under oath before a grand jury, of course, also is a crime.
TRUMP’S OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE: CRIMES FIVE THROUGH TWO
Although Mueller makes no formal conclusion on the obstruction questions, the Report analyzes many actions taken by Trump in the context of the basic elements of the crime of obstruction: i) an obstructive act – interpreted to mean any act that blocks, makes difficult or hinders; ii) a nexus between the act and an official proceeding; and iii) a corrupt intent.
Contrary to assertions repeatedly made by Trump and his administration, the investigation “found multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russia-interference and obstruction investigations.” Mueller’s Report tees these issues up for Congress to consider, stating “The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”
After the fact that Michael Flynn had made false statements to FBI agents and administration officials about his communications with the Russian Ambassador (noted above) became public, Trump asked him to resign in February 2017. Mueller’s investigation found credible evidence that Trump had a one-on-one conversation with then FBI-director, James Comey, the following day during which Trump stated: “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy.” Mueller further found credible that Comey understood Trump’s statement to be a directive.
Mueller also concluded that at the time Trump spoke to Comey, circumstances suggested he was aware that Flynn could face criminal exposure for his conduct and was at risk for prosecution. The investigation produced evidence that the President connected Flynn’s investigation to the FBI’s broader Russian investigation as to whether members of his campaign had colluded with Russia. Mueller also believed that the way in which Trump communicated his request to Comey – by clearing the room and addressing him alone – was relevant to understanding Trump’s intent.
Number 4. Obstruction of Justice: Trump’s Termination of FBI Director Comey
Less than a week after Comey testified before Congress, Trump fired Comey.
