HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » ***Jed Shugerman, law pro...

Wed Jul 10, 2019, 08:19 AM

***Jed Shugerman, law prof: Mueller team misread the law and missed the crime.***

Prof. Shugerman is not trying to diminish Trump's crimes, as some criticizing Mueller have done. Shugerman's afraid that the report uses a mistaken interpretation of campaign finance law and wrongly lets Trump off the hook on the issue of coordination.

And, as Prof. Shugerman points out, this mistake in reading campaign finance law will affect not just this investigation, but every election going forward. It will effectively green-light foreign interference that Congress, in a 2002 statute, specifically sought to ban.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/robert-mueller-missed-the-crime-trumps-campaign-coordinated-with-russia?ref=scroll&fbclid=IwAR2h3WMCRTUgsUKaRSDESYhXh6EP_n2Uk7PyGF3laKsYzTwtNzwOuiIMPMY


The DOJ’s initial appointment explicitly tasked Mueller with investigating campaign “coordination,” and it is not too much to ask that he get the law of “coordination” right. The report stated that “‘coordination’ does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express.”

However, Congress purposely sought to prevent such narrow interpretations: in 2002, it passed a statute directing that campaign finance regulations “shall not require agreement or formal collaboration to establish coordination.” The Federal Election Commission established the regulations for the implementation of the statute: “Coordinated means made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate,” with no need to show any kind of agreement.

Outside spending for coordinated communications is an in-kind contribution, and foreign contributions are completely prohibited. And Congress made the criminal penalties unmistakably clear: “Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this Act” commits a crime. The Supreme Court upheld these limits in McConnell v. FEC with crucial observations about the functional role of suggestions, rather than agreements: “[E]xpenditures made after a wink or nod often will be as useful to the candidate as cash.” This timeline is full of suggestions far more explicit than winks and nods.

SNIP

Mueller’s failures and omissions have another round of dangerous cause-and-effect. He is opening the loophole that Congress was purposely trying to avoid, and he is telling all the 2020 campaigns that these rules will not be enforced. Now Trump and his aides seem to think they have legal permission to openly do all of it again. Rudy Giuliani flagrantly tested these coordination rules in his political contacts with Ukraine officials. Given Mueller’s failure and Trump’s exploitation of that failure, it is now Congress’s duty to the public, the candidates under investigation, and future candidates to identify the law clearly, and to explain that some of this behavior was a civil violation, and in fact a criminal violation.

23 replies, 1107 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply ***Jed Shugerman, law prof: Mueller team misread the law and missed the crime.*** (Original post)
pnwmom Wednesday OP
brush Wednesday #1
pnwmom Wednesday #2
brush Wednesday #6
pnwmom Wednesday #14
NewJeffCT Friday #23
Farmer-Rick Wednesday #3
brush Wednesday #5
Farmer-Rick Wednesday #7
pnwmom Wednesday #12
triron Wednesday #8
pnwmom Wednesday #11
triron Wednesday #13
pnwmom Wednesday #15
Takket Wednesday #4
triron Wednesday #9
triron Wednesday #10
triron Wednesday #16
triron Wednesday #17
triron Wednesday #18
triron Thursday #19
triron Thursday #20
triron Friday #21
Hermit-The-Prog Friday #22

Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 10, 2019, 08:28 AM

1. A lot of attacks on Mueller now that his testimony looms.

This sounds like it's right out of the Barr playbook.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 10, 2019, 08:32 AM

2. It's the OPPOSITE. Prof Shugerman is solidly on the anti-Trump side. I suggest you read the article

and read the statute.

Shugarman is trying to suggest questions for Democrats to ask to strengthen the case against Trump. This is our one chance and I hope someone on the Committees takes Shugerman's concerns seriously.

Unless we want to leave the door open for more and more of this activity going forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 10, 2019, 09:06 AM

6. You're right. Guess I was responding to Barr lately trying to discourage...

Mueller and his team members not to testify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #6)

Wed Jul 10, 2019, 11:39 AM

14. Thanks for taking a second look. I've seen the kind of pieces you've noted, too,

and I certainly wouldn't post something like that here!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #14)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 10:31 AM

23. There are a lot of really smart legal minds

on our side - Shugerman, Neal Katyal, Laurence Tribe, Asha Rangappa, etc - not to mention Harris, Warren and Klobuchar in the Senate
(Klobuchar's presidential bid is probably never taking off, but she's had some good moments questioning witnesses in the Senate)

i'm missing a ton, but those names came into my head from recent articles/tweets

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 10, 2019, 08:46 AM

3. Thanks so much for posting this. I thought I was the only one

I thought it was strange I was the only one thinking that Mueller wrote a really bad investigation report.

I've written investigation reports and I clearly had a duty to recommend charges, and write them up referencing applicable regulations and laws. And I would have charged Trump if given all the evidence Mueller had. But I put it down to different applicable investigation regulations.

The regulations covering the investigations I did, clearly said write up a recommended charge (and site all the regs and laws that apply) and let the prosecution decide if they would bring charges. My responsibility was to recommend Not to make prosecution decisions. Mueller seem to do the opposite. He did Not recommend charges, with the slightest provocation and left it up to the prosecution (the congress) to do the leg work and write up charges.

He either didn't have enough time to do thorough regulation and law research in order to prepare charges against Trump or he's a RepubliCON who will always err in favor of any RepubliCON.

All in all to me the Mueller report came across as half finished and sloppy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Farmer-Rick (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 10, 2019, 08:54 AM

5. Barr came in and in a month Mueller was finished. Coincidence?

I don't think so. Barr IMO pressured him to wrap it up. And then there is the unwritten understanding that a sitting president can't be indicted. Mueller could've went against that but he adhered to it. That was a disappointment, but it could be that he was being rushed to finished.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #5)

Wed Jul 10, 2019, 10:26 AM

7. Yeah that was my 1st thought

It was like he didn't have time to do a thorough job. It certainly was poorly put together.

And it's been redacted so that it does have a choppy confusing aspect to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #5)

Wed Jul 10, 2019, 11:37 AM

12. I think this might be the explanation. Or even that it got heavily edited by Barr,

or that Barr directed him to use a certain interpretation of the law.

But then why wouldn't Mueller have wanted to shout that to the world?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Farmer-Rick (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 10, 2019, 10:32 AM

8. His findings smell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Farmer-Rick (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 10, 2019, 11:29 AM

11. It left me wondering how much of a hand Barr had in the actual writing of the report. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #11)

Wed Jul 10, 2019, 11:39 AM

13. I have thought of that as well. I think it might be appreciable.

Will Mueller spill?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triron (Reply #13)

Wed Jul 10, 2019, 11:42 AM

15. Why has he been so reluctant to speak then? Whatever the case,

I hope our Committees use the Democratic time very wisely -- not as a time of for random 5 minute per person questioning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 10, 2019, 08:48 AM

4. Interesting...

This seems to be saying quotes like “Russia if you are listening, please find the emails” can be accepted as coordination.

And that makes sense.

Because when criminals collude it isn’t like they hammer out an agreement on paper and sign and notarize it. It is “wink wink know what I mean?”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 10, 2019, 10:33 AM

9. ala Cohen's testimony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 10, 2019, 10:38 AM

10. But 'it's too soon to impeach'. (Sarcasm)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 10, 2019, 04:50 PM

16. knr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 10, 2019, 06:28 PM

17. kick for visibility

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 10, 2019, 08:36 PM

18. kick again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 02:35 PM

19. This should stay visible until the Mueller hearing next week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triron (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 05:47 PM

20. Again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 10:17 AM

21. knr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triron (Reply #21)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 10:24 AM

22. thanks! had missed this until now

If you hadn't kicked it, I would have missed it again!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread