tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/mueller-investigation-58562/articlesMueller investigation – The Conversation2020-05-26T11:11:59Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1389872020-05-26T11:11:59Z2020-05-26T11:11:59ZHow to understand Obamagate – Donald Trump’s latest conspiracy theory<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/337574/original/file-20200526-106836-1q8o3x7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://twitter.com/JoanneWT09/status/1259614457015103490">Andrew Cline / Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Obamagate is the latest conspiracy theory to be pushed by US president, Donald Trump. It started on the morning of May 10, when Trump <a href="https://twitter.com/JoanneWT09/status/1259614457015103490">retweeted</a> the word “OBAMAGATE!” By the next day, the Obamagate hashtag <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/obamagate-trends-on-twitter-following-trumps-latest-claims-of-deep-state-ploy-to-undo-him">had accrued over two million tweets</a> and another four million by the end of the week. Trump has repeatedly reused the slogan on his Twitter feed since and it has been promoted by right-wing influencers including <a href="https://twitter.com/glennbeck/status/1261049756589195267">Glenn Beck</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/1260011852660002816">Sean Hannity</a> and many others.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1259614457015103490"}"></div></p>
<p>You are not alone if you’re confused by what Obamagate actually is or why Trump is tweeting about it. When a reporter from the Washington Post asked the president to explain it in a press briefing, <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4876088/user-clip-trump-obamagate">he replied</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Obamagate! It’s been going on for a long time. It’s been going on since before I even got elected … Some terrible things happened, and it should never be allowed to happen in our country again … and I wish you’d write honestly about it but unfortunately you choose not to do so.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>When asked for specifics, Trump added: “The crime is very obvious to everybody, all you have to do is read the newspapers, except yours.” </p>
<p>Obamagate is a half-baked conspiracy theory, which is why Trump’s explanation seems cryptic and incoherent. Accusing the Obama administration of a vague cover-up, relating to the investigation into collusion with Russia that has dogged Trump’s presidency, it conjures up the spectre of a vast conspiracy without providing much explanation. Its very vagueness, however, is part of what makes it attractive to those among Trump’s fan base who see themselves as <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-conspiracy-theories-spread-online-its-not-just-down-to-algorithms-133891">researchers in search of the truth</a>.</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/playlist/0MoeyVTV6b72NShvcM4cfa" width="100%" height="380" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allow="encrypted-media"></iframe>
<hr>
<h2>QAnon links</h2>
<p>Obamagate is strongly linked to the QAnon conspiracy theory – on Twitter, these hashtags are frequently used alongside each other. <a href="https://theconversation.com/qanon-conspiracy-theories-about-the-coronavirus-pandemic-are-a-public-health-threat-135515">QAnon</a> is a well-established deep state conspiracy theory centred around a shadowy figure “Q” with supposed insider government knowledge. Q posts anonymously (hence QAnon) in far-right online forums, stoking up the idea that a deep state cabal of global elites is responsible for all the evil in the world. Followers see Trump as the world’s only hope in bringing down this cabal and claim that Q requested Trump to post <a href="https://8kun.top/qresearch/res/9109729.html#9110010">the first #Obamagate tweet</a>. </p>
<p>With its origins on fringe messageboard websites such 4chan, the QAnon conspiracy theory has <a href="http://salhagen.nl/dmi19/normiefication">gone increasingly mainstream</a> in recent years. Indeed, it has become so popular that it currently appears to be taking the shape of a new religious movement among its acolytes, some of whom <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-church-of-qanon-will-conspiracy-theories-form-the-basis-of-a-new-religious-movement-137859">now even convene worship groups</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/337575/original/file-20200526-106862-1bgyxle.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/337575/original/file-20200526-106862-1bgyxle.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/337575/original/file-20200526-106862-1bgyxle.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/337575/original/file-20200526-106862-1bgyxle.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/337575/original/file-20200526-106862-1bgyxle.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/337575/original/file-20200526-106862-1bgyxle.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/337575/original/file-20200526-106862-1bgyxle.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">QAnon followers back Donald Trump.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/phoenix-october-19-2018-trump-supporters-1207940566">Eric Rosenwald / Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Like a lot of conspiracy theories, QAnon serves a political purpose. It emerged at the time of the official investigation into alleged Russian collusion in the Trump presidential campaign, led by former special counsel Robert Mueller. Similarly, Obamagate has a clear political agenda. It accuses the Obama administration of masterminding the Russia investigation to tarnish Trump’s presidency from the outset. More importantly, it diverts attention away from the current coronavirus crisis, suggesting that Trump is the victim of a far-reaching plot to undermine his authority.</p>
<h2>Propaganda play</h2>
<p>Obamagate is an example of what has been called “conspiracy without theory” by the political scientists <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691188836/a-lot-of-people-are-saying">Nancy Rosenblum and Russell Muirhead</a>. It makes knowing gestures towards the idea of a conspiracy theory without developing or committing to an actual full-blown explanation. This is a rhetorical technique that Trump has long used to great effect, both as a <a href="https://books.google.nl/books/about/Dog_Whistle_Politics.html?id=cZe1AQAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y">dog-whistle</a> appeal to <a href="https://books.google.nl/books/about/The_Reactionary_Mind.html?id=fpc4DwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y">American conservatives</a> and an attempt to deflect attention from his many blunders. In this case, it’s his administration’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/fast-acting-countries-cut-their-coronavirus-death-rates-while-us-delays-cost-thousands-of-lives-139018">mismanagement of the coronavirus crisis</a>. </p>
<p>As the scholar Jason Stanley <a href="https://books.google.nl/books?redir_esc=y&hl=nl&id=NARIDwAAQBAJ&q=provide+simple+explanations+for+otherwise+irrational+emotions%2C+such+as+resentment+or+xenophobic+fear+in+the+face+of+perceived+threats#v=snippet&q=provide%20simple%20explanations%20for%20otherwise%20irrational%20emotions%2C%20such%20as%20resentment%20or%20xenophobic%20fear%20in%20the%20face%20of%20perceived%20threats&f=false">has pointed out</a>, this form of political speech offers “simple explanations for otherwise irrational emotions, such as resentment or xenophobic fear in the face of perceived threats”. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-dangerous-are-conspiracy-theories-listen-to-part-five-of-our-expert-guide-136070">How dangerous are conspiracy theories? Listen to part five of our expert guide</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Obamagate is a classic case of propaganda in that it is intended to create an aura of innuendo in order to reframe the narrative. It is an attempt to deflect attention away from the Trump administration’s disastrous handling of the coronavirus pandemic by making Trump out to be the victim. In a similar manner to how Pizzagate <a href="http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/1422">tarnished Hillary Clinton’s electoral prospects in 2016</a>, Obamagate is part of Trump’s campaign strategy to defeat the democratic nominee Joe Biden in the upcoming presidential election. </p>
<p>The difference from Pizzagate, however, is that this time Trump has abandoned the pretence of keeping the conspiracy theory at arm’s length. Desperate to reset the narrative, he has thrown in his lot with some of the most extreme and fringe elements of his base. In the past, Trump’s fans on 4chan often referred to him as <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=God+Emperor+Trump&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvnNi89MbpAhXR-qQKHaJmA0QQ_AUoAXoECGMQAw&biw=1337&bih=749">God Emperor Trump</a>. After Obamagate, it would now seem that the proverbial emperor has no clothes. </p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301912/original/file-20191115-66957-gxdqkd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301912/original/file-20191115-66957-gxdqkd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301912/original/file-20191115-66957-gxdqkd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301912/original/file-20191115-66957-gxdqkd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301912/original/file-20191115-66957-gxdqkd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301912/original/file-20191115-66957-gxdqkd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301912/original/file-20191115-66957-gxdqkd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>Get the latest news and analysis, direct from the experts in your inbox, every day. Join hundreds of thousands who trust experts by <strong><a href="http://theconversation.com/newsletter?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCNewsletter&utm_content=newsletterA">subscribing to our newsletter</a></strong>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/138987/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The author received funding from the ODYCCEUS Horizon 2020 project, grant agreement number 732942.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Knight does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Obamagate is strongly linked to the QAnon conspiracy theory – on Twitter these hashtags are frequently used alongside each other.Marc Tuters, Department of Media & Culture, Faculty of Humanities, University of AmsterdamPeter Knight, Professor of American Studies, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1328612020-03-17T12:11:28Z2020-03-17T12:11:28ZReports of the death of congressional oversight are greatly exaggerated<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/320001/original/file-20200311-116270-gvxf56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The U.S .Capitol on February 20, 2020 in Washington, D.C. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-us-capitol-dome-is-viewed-on-february-20-2020-in-news-photo/1201963422?adppopup=true">Getty/Alex Edelman/AFP</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For over 200 years, Congress and the executive branch have maintained a delicate balance of power. When disputes between the two branches have arisen, they have compromised and turned to the courts only as a last resort. </p>
<p>Recently, an appeals court ruled in <a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/29F7900862BA6CD68525851C00784758/$file/19-5331-1831001.pdf">House Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn</a> that courts do not have authority to enforce congressional subpoenas. In this case, it was a subpoena for a former White House legal counsel to testify before a congressional committee.</p>
<p><a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/485272-congress-hits-rock-bottom-in-losing-to-the-president-in-subpoena-ruling">Political commentators</a> and scholars immediately decried the opinion as eviscerating Congress’ oversight powers. The opinion was seen as so potentially harmful that the House Judiciary Committee asked the court to reconsider the case, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/full-appeals-court-to-rehear-donald-mcgahn-subpoena-and-trump-border-wall-cases/2020/03/13/3ac324d4-656c-11ea-acca-80c22bbee96f_story.html">and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will do so</a> in late April.</p>
<p>A close look at the decision suggests the court may be trying to restore the balance of power by reminding the political branches that the Constitution expects them to cooperate with one another. Short of that, the decision said, Congress has the power to enforce its own subpoenas.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/320003/original/file-20200311-116255-1a1xble.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/320003/original/file-20200311-116255-1a1xble.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/320003/original/file-20200311-116255-1a1xble.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/320003/original/file-20200311-116255-1a1xble.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/320003/original/file-20200311-116255-1a1xble.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/320003/original/file-20200311-116255-1a1xble.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/320003/original/file-20200311-116255-1a1xble.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/320003/original/file-20200311-116255-1a1xble.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">White House Counsel Don McGahn listens as President Donald J. Trump speaks during a Cabinet meeting, Oct. 17, 2018, in Washington, D.C.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/white-house-counsel-don-mcgahn-listens-as-president-donald-news-photo/1139002543?adppopup=true">The Washington Post via Getty/Jabin Botsford</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘Absolute immunity’</h2>
<p>In the <a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/29F7900862BA6CD68525851C00784758/$file/19-5331-1831001.pdf">McGahn</a> case, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed former White House Counsel Don McGahn in May 2019 as part of its inquiry into <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/us/politics/trump-mueller-obstruction.html">whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice</a> during the Mueller investigation. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/20/trump-mcgahn-subpoena-1335331">Trump instructed McGahn not to testify</a>, asserting that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/us/politics/mcgahn-trump-congress-lawsuit.html">presidential advisers possess “absolute immunity”</a> from congressional subpoenas. McGahn obeyed the president’s order, and the House Judiciary Committee sought court enforcement of its subpoena. The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/mcgahn-testimony-ruling.html">district court ordered that McGahn comply</a> with the subpoena, and the Trump administration appealed. </p>
<p>Rather than involve itself in the dispute, the D.C. Circuit’s majority opinion followed <a href="https://theconversation.com/courts-have-avoided-refereeing-between-congress-and-the-president-but-trump-may-force-them-to-wade-in-128269">earlier cases</a> encouraging the political branches to negotiate and accommodate. It lamented the recent breakdown in the time-honored process of negotiation and accommodation, noting that “<a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/29F7900862BA6CD68525851C00784758/$file/19-5331-1831001.pdf">the branches never brought these kinds of suits</a>” until the 1970s. </p>
<p>Refusing to decide such cases now, the majority emphasized the constitutional duty of the political branches to negotiate and accommodate. </p>
<p>In short, it told the political branches to get their acts together and go back to the negotiating table.</p>
<h2>Congress’ turn</h2>
<p>The court’s message to Congress was clear: Congress should use the many oversight tools it has “<a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/29F7900862BA6CD68525851C00784758/$file/19-5331-1831001.pdf">to turn up the heat</a>” on the executive branch.</p>
<p>Insisting that it was not leaving Congress without recourse by refusing to enforce the subpoena, the court majority enumerated the many ways that Congress could encourage the executive branch to engage in negotiations. </p>
<p>Congress “may hold officers in contempt, withhold appropriations, refuse to confirm the President’s nominees, harness public opinion, or delay or derail the President’s legislative agenda, or impeach recalcitrant officers,” <a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/29F7900862BA6CD68525851C00784758/$file/19-5331-1831001.pdf">Judge Thomas B. Griffith wrote</a>. </p>
<p>In short, the court wasn’t undermining Congress’ oversight powers; it was urging Congress to use them. </p>
<p>As at least one commentator has noted, if Congress were to heed the court’s advice and more aggressively use the oversight tools it has, it would “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/03/02/congress-cant-rely-courts-enforce-its-subpoenas-dont-panic/">empower Congress rather than weaken it</a>.” </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/320224/original/file-20200312-111253-euqbl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/320224/original/file-20200312-111253-euqbl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/320224/original/file-20200312-111253-euqbl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=331&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/320224/original/file-20200312-111253-euqbl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=331&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/320224/original/file-20200312-111253-euqbl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=331&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/320224/original/file-20200312-111253-euqbl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/320224/original/file-20200312-111253-euqbl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/320224/original/file-20200312-111253-euqbl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Paul D. Irving, sergeant-at-arms of the U.S. House of Representatives, has the power to ‘to detain recalcitrant administrative officials.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/officers-and-organizations/sergeant-at-arms">House.gov</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Arrests by Congress rare</h2>
<p>Congress’ <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45653.pdf">hesitation to call in the sergeant-at-arms</a> to detain recalcitrant executive branch officials most likely reflects the seriousness of such action. Turning to the courts appeared more decorous and less aggressive than arresting administration officials.</p>
<p>The courts had <a href="https://casetext.com/case/committee-on-judiciary-v-miers-2">upheld congressional subpoenas</a> to the executive branch in the past, so the House Judiciary Committee had good reason to pursue legal enforcement against McGahn. </p>
<p>But even though the <a href="https://casetext.com/case/mcgrain-v-daugherty?">courts have affirmed Congress’ authority</a> to detain individuals for refusing to comply with congressional demands for information, <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45653.pdf">Congress has rarely resorted to detaining people</a>. It has not detained anyone since the 1930s, preferring to negotiate and accommodate to resolve disputes over information with the executive branch.</p>
<p>Yet American politics have shifted dramatically during the Trump administration. The tacit agreement between the political branches to negotiate and accommodate has disintegrated.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/executive-privilege-cant-protect-trump-forever/599200/">The president has categorically refused to cooperate with Congress</a>. His disregard for Congress led him to argue that the impeachment proceedings were <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/1/13/21063457/trump-impeachment-giuliani-unconstitutional-should-not-even-be-allowed-to-proceed">unconstitutional</a>. </p>
<p>In this new political reality, Congress may have no choice but to protect its oversight powers by forcefully reasserting them.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/320012/original/file-20200311-116236-1f59f36.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/320012/original/file-20200311-116236-1f59f36.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/320012/original/file-20200311-116236-1f59f36.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/320012/original/file-20200311-116236-1f59f36.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/320012/original/file-20200311-116236-1f59f36.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/320012/original/file-20200311-116236-1f59f36.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=644&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/320012/original/file-20200311-116236-1f59f36.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=644&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/320012/original/file-20200311-116236-1f59f36.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=644&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Appeals Court ruling in House Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://ecf.cadc.uscourts.gov/n/beam/servlet/TransportRoom">uscourts.gov</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Not everything resolved</h2>
<p>The court sent a message to the president as well. </p>
<p>The court did not – as the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/us/politics/mcgahn-trump-congress-lawsuit.html">president had wanted</a> – <a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/29F7900862BA6CD68525851C00784758/$file/19-5331-1831001.pdf">affirm</a> that presidential advisers have absolute immunity. In fact, a majority of the three-judge panel expressed grave skepticism about such claims by the president. </p>
<p>One of the judges in the majority wrote separately to <a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/29F7900862BA6CD68525851C00784758/$file/19-5331-1831001.pdf">cast considerable doubt on that claim</a>, noting that the Trump administration had identified “no case law recognizing the existence of such immunity from congressional process.” </p>
<p>Contrary to the recent alarmist response that Congress could no longer hold the president accountable, the decision in McGahn was not an unequivocal victory for either side. It was a reminder, instead, that they have constitutional obligations to work together. Whatever the D.C. Circuit decides when it rehears the case in late April, that point – that the legislative and executive branches have that obligation to work together – will not change.</p>
<p>[<em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/132861/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kirsten Matoy Carlson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Congress wanted an aide to President Trump to testify; Trump ordered him not to. Congress went to court over it, and the court told both sides to leave the courts out of it and negotiate a solution.Kirsten Matoy Carlson, Associate Professor of Law and Adjunct Associate Professor of Political Science, Wayne State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1247002019-10-04T04:55:57Z2019-10-04T04:55:57ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on Scott Morrison’s controversial phone call with Donald Trump<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IPYHhnlBa8E?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Professor Deep Saini discusses with Michelle Grattan the consequences of the New York Times revelation that Donald Trump called Scott Morrison to assist with an inquiry looking into the origins of the Mueller probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. They also talk about the Prime Minister’s address at the Lowy Institute, in which he warns against “negative globalism”, and the Reserve Bank’s latest interest rate cuts.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124700/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Deep Saini and Michelle Grattan discuss the consequences of the controversial phone call between Morrison and Trump as revealed by the New York Times.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1245052019-10-01T09:32:20Z2019-10-01T09:32:20ZView from The Hill: Another Australian PM finds a phone call with Trump can land you on the sticky paper<p>The dramatic revelation <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/us/politics/trump-australia-barr-mueller.html">by the New York Times</a> that Donald Trump pressed Scott Morrison in an early September phone call for help in an exercise of overt presidential politicking does not indicate any Australian government wrongdoing.</p>
<p>But it shows how Morrison’s bromance with the president brings its political embarrassments along with all that glitz and warmth.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/a-great-gentleman-us-president-praises-pm-scott-morrison-at-rally-in-ohio-20190923-p52tw2.html">Last week</a> the PM got himself caught up in a Trump-created political rally. Now he’s on the spot over this (typical) Trump call, which was about US Attorney-General William Barr’s seeking information for the justice department inquiry that the president hopes will discredit the Mueller probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.</p>
<p>Australia, inadvertently, was central in the train of events leading to the Mueller inquiry, which has now reported (and found Russian activity).</p>
<p>In May 2016, Alexander Downer, then Australian High Commissioner in London, had drinks with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos. </p>
<p>Papadopoulos said Russia had told the Trump campaign it had damaging information on Hillary Clinton and was prepared to release it close to the election.</p>
<p>Downer reported that back to the foreign affairs department, which shared it with the intelligence community. Subsequently, the Americans were alerted to it, and it got to the FBI, becoming a catalyst for the Mueller inquiry.</p>
<p>Downer acted properly. A diplomat’s job is to gather information and inform their government.</p>
<p>(Papadopoulos, who sees Downer as an agent of entrapment, has tweeted in the wake of the NYT article: “I have been right about Downer from the beginning. A wannabe spy and Clinton errand boy who is about to get exposed on the world stage”.)</p>
<p>The issue for the Australian government became more complicated when Trump, who paints himself as the victim of a conspiracy, launched the current investigation into the origins of the FBI’s inquiry. The president said at the time he hoped Barr “looks at the UK, and I hope he looks at Australia, and I hope he looks at Ukraine. I hope he looks at everything because there was a hoax that was perpetrated on our country”.</p>
<p>Australia immediately promised cooperation.</p>
<p>Did it have much alternative? On the downside, this was a highly charged Trumpian exercise. But the inquiry was under the auspices of a US government department. And wouldn’t refusal to co-operate suggest Australia had something to hide, when there is no reason to suppose it did?</p>
<p>Joe Hockey, Australia’s ambassador in Washington, wrote to Barr on May 28 saying: “The Australian government will use its best endeavours to support your efforts in this matter”. He said while Downer was no longer employed by the government, “we stand ready to provide you with all relevant information to support your inquiries.”</p>
<p>Presumably, the government has little to give beyond an account of the Downer discussion and the subsequently passing on of the contents of that conversation.</p>
<p>But Simon Jackman, CEO of the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, poses the pertinent question: “If Hockey says, we’re here to help, what was the point of the September phone call?” He suggest it might have had to do with the declassification of documents. </p>
<p>The affair is now politically messy for Morrison on two levels.</p>
<p>The leak of the previously undisclosed telephone call comes immediately after the revelations about the president’s call to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, in which he urged him to investigate Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden and his son. That has led to the impeachment inquiry.</p>
<p>There is no parallel between the conversations, but inevitably there will be a conflation.</p>
<p>Further, in the absence of a transcript, there will be questions (already being asked by the opposition) about the content and tone of the Trump-Morrison conversation, which came shortly before the PM’s US trip, on which he was so effusive about the president. Bill Shorten said:“Mr Morrison needs to clean up the perception that perhaps the special reception was returned for special favours done”.</p>
<p>It’s understood that Morrison and Trump didn’t discuss the specifics of the matter. The request was reportedly “polite”, asking for cooperation with Barr and for a point of contact. Trump was aware that the matter was before Morrison’s time, and didn’t expect him to know about the details.</p>
<p>The government insists it has nothing to fear if the transcript of the call becomes public through another leak. If that’s accurate, it should be hoping that leak will occur.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124505/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Last week the PM got himself caught up in a Trump-created political rally. Now he’s on the spot over this (typical) Trump call.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1181012019-06-03T17:10:37Z2019-06-03T17:10:37ZIs Robert Mueller an antique? The role of the facts in a post-truth era<p>In just a little over eight minutes – on the morning of Wednesday, May 29th – the post-truth era came to an end.</p>
<p>Or did it?</p>
<p>That’s when <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/mueller-special-counsel.html">Special Counsel Robert Mueller took the podium</a> and addressed only the facts concerning his <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mueller-report-sent-to-attorney-general-signaling-his-russia-investigation-has-ended/2019/03/22/b061d8fa-323e-11e9-813a-0ab2f17e305b_story.html">two-year-long investigation into Russian interference</a> in the 2016 presidential election as well as possible collusion and obstruction of justice.</p>
<p>Some might feel that Mueller struck a blow for truth and reality in a world where we are daily surrounded by opinion, spin and commentary. He seemed determined to follow the old rules no matter the madness that surrounded him. </p>
<p>Others, however, might feel that Mueller presented himself more as an antique specimen, and not a particularly useful one at that. How? By refusing to accept the reality that he was giving his address in a world where he knew his statement would be spun, lied about and exploited by others. </p>
<p>What is the role of someone who speaks only of facts in a tornado of partisan bombast? Is it a breath of fresh air? Or an abdication of responsibility to protect the country’s interests?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277689/original/file-20190603-69059-jlgq3m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277689/original/file-20190603-69059-jlgq3m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277689/original/file-20190603-69059-jlgq3m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277689/original/file-20190603-69059-jlgq3m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277689/original/file-20190603-69059-jlgq3m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277689/original/file-20190603-69059-jlgq3m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277689/original/file-20190603-69059-jlgq3m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277689/original/file-20190603-69059-jlgq3m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It used to be that lies had the power to shock. Now, facts are the outliers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.shutterstock.com%2Fgatekeeper%2FW3siZSI6MTU1OTYwMzk2MCwiYyI6Il9waG90b19zZXNzaW9uX2lkIiwiZGMiOiJpZGxfMzI2MjQ3NzQ5IiwiayI6InBob3RvLzMyNjI0Nzc0OS9odWdlLmpwZyIsIm0iOjEsImQiOiJzaHV0dGVyc3RvY2stbWVkaWEifSwiQTI0NUM3Q3Rlak5RQ08zczFBR1hleFVBRVFVIl0%2Fshutterstock_326247749.jpg&pi=33421636&m=326247749&src=NNmmW-XRFNEiUm4k74aWag-1-5">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Facts vs post-truth</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.leemcintyrebooks.com/lee.php">I’m a philosopher</a> who studies the rational foundation for belief. In my book, “<a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/post-truth">Post-Truth</a>” (MIT Press, 2018), I explore the idea that “post-truth” actually goes far beyond the Oxford dictionaries’ definition of it as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” </p>
<p>Instead, I offer the idea that post-truth is more usefully understood as the “political subordination of reality,” in which truth is the first casualty on the road to authoritarianism.</p>
<p>If that is right, what are we to think of Mueller’s fact-based statement?</p>
<p>At the start, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/mueller-transcript.html">Mueller outlined the parameters and limitations of his investigation.</a> Given <a href="https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/092473.pdf">Justice Department guidelines</a>, he said, he could not charge a sitting president with a crime (left unsaid: even if he felt that he had committed one). </p>
<p>Furthermore, in the interest of “fairness,” Mueller offered that it would be untoward to accuse someone of a crime when there could be no ultimate determination of guilt or innocence at trial. </p>
<p>Thus, Mueller offered no opinion on whether Trump had committed a crime. (Left unsaid: What would be the point?) As he put it, charging Trump with a crime was “not an option we could consider.” </p>
<p>The two things “left unsaid” would not be “factual” statements, but rather opinions, and he was avoiding those.</p>
<p>But then we get to the most intriguing part of Mueller’s statement, where a brief lesson in logic is in order.</p>
<h2>What Mueller believes</h2>
<p>In deductive logic, there is a relationship called the “contrapositive,” which demonstrates the equivalence between statements like “if P, then Q” and “if not Q, then not P.” Millions of LSAT takers have come to learn this by evaluating the validity of arguments like the following:</p>
<pre class="highlight plaintext"><code>1. Premise: If it's raining, the streets are wet
2. Premise: It's raining
3. Conclusion: Therefore, the streets are wet
</code></pre>
<p>This is a deductively valid argument, indeed famously so. The lesson here: If you buy the truth of the premises there can be no doubt about the truth of the conclusion. This one is a cinch. </p>
<p>Now compare this argument to a second one:</p>
<pre class="highlight plaintext"><code>1. Premise: If it's raining, the streets are wet
2. Premise: The streets are not wet
3. Conclusion: Therefore, it is not raining
</code></pre>
<p>This one, too, is deductively valid, and in fact it follows the form of the contrapositive explained above. If the premises are true, one cannot help but believe the conclusion. It is, in effect, the same type of argument. </p>
<p>But now for the moment of “truth.”</p>
<pre class="highlight plaintext"><code>1. Stated premise: "If we had confidence that the
president clearly did not commit a crime,
we would have said so."
2. Unstated premise: We did not say so
3. Conclusion: We did not have confidence that the
president did not commit a crime.
</code></pre>
<p>Remove the double negative and you get the implication that – without quite saying it – Mueller believes that Trump committed a crime.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277690/original/file-20190603-69059-1sw5r9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277690/original/file-20190603-69059-1sw5r9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277690/original/file-20190603-69059-1sw5r9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277690/original/file-20190603-69059-1sw5r9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277690/original/file-20190603-69059-1sw5r9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277690/original/file-20190603-69059-1sw5r9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277690/original/file-20190603-69059-1sw5r9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277690/original/file-20190603-69059-1sw5r9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Washington Post says that President Trump has made ‘made more than 10,000 false or misleading claims’ while in office.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/APTOPIX-Trump-Kim-Summit/8c8d45c381c64349b5afba5518495ede/31/0">AP/Susan Walsh</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘Logic chopping? Cheating?’</h2>
<p>Is this message from Mueller post-truth? Cheating? Too clever by half? Or is it, as the attorneys sometimes call it, “<a href="https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Logic%Chopping">logic chopping</a>,” the practice of using nitpicky, pedantic logic arguments to avoid dealing with the larger truth?</p>
<p>During his statement, Mueller stood with military bearing, refusing to debase himself by using the outrageous tactics of partisanship, personal attack or even overstatement. </p>
<p>Reading from his carefully prepared script, never wavering from what he has allowed himself to say, Mueller could be a prisoner of war reading a hostage statement, hoping his message will nonetheless get through.</p>
<p>Or perhaps he’s more of a schoolteacher, telling us what to study because – Congress – this will be on the test. </p>
<h2>Does Mueller matter?</h2>
<p>Have Americans’ sensibilities been so dulled by a post-truth environment that they no longer recognize the facts – and what they imply – unless they are presented within the context of politics? </p>
<p>Is America not only post-truth, but also post-logic? </p>
<p>The response to Mueller makes it seem that way. The man-who-stuck-to-the-facts was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/mueller-resigns-special-counsel.html">immediately derided</a> as a partisan hack or as a straitjacketed government functionary. About the nicest thing said about him was <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-think-about-muellers-statement/">in the nonpartisan publication Fivethirtyeight</a>, where staff writer Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux said “In some ways, Mueller’s statement felt out of sync with the current political moment.” </p>
<p>Perhaps the role of a truth-teller in a post-truth world – the “current political moment” – is simply to play it straight: neither to indulge in false equivalance nor to pick a team just because one side is doing most of the lying. </p>
<p>[<em>Expertise in your inbox.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=expertise">Sign up for our newsletter and get a digest of academic takes on today’s news, every day</a>.] </p>
<p>But telling it straight is only one-half of the equation. Such truth-tellers can insist that we do some of the work ourselves, rather than respond with lazy, thoughtless reflex. They remind us of what we have lost when all is opinion or spin – our independence of mind.</p>
<p>In a post-truth world, where everyone is jockeying for advantage and position, a truth-teller is trying to get our attention. </p>
<p>Is anyone still listening? Are we willing to do the work?</p>
<p>
<section class="inline-content">
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248895/original/file-20181204-133100-t34yqm.png?w=128&h=128">
<div>
<header>Lee McIntyre is the author of:</header>
<p><a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/post-truth">Post-Truth</a></p>
<footer>MIT Press provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.</footer>
</div>
</section>
</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118101/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lee McIntyre is a registered Democrat. MIT Press provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.</span></em></p>What’s the role of someone who, like
Robert Mueller, speaks only facts in a tornado of partisan bombast? Is it a breath of fresh air or an abdication of responsibility to protect America’s interests?Lee McIntyre, Research Fellow Center for Philosophy and History of Science, Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1160342019-04-26T10:50:50Z2019-04-26T10:50:50ZHow to avoid accidentally becoming a Russian agent<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271071/original/file-20190425-121220-16y3niy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=5%2C0%2C1871%2C1159&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">He's calling – but will you answer?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/59485/photos">Russian Presidential Executive Office</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>American citizens are unwittingly becoming Russian agents. That’s an unavoidable conclusion of Robert Mueller’s report on his investigation into <a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf">Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election</a>, and an important problem that requires a change in thinking about how people interact on social media. Old adages like “Don’t talk to strangers” don’t really apply in a hyperconnected world. A more accurate replacement is perhaps even more worrying, though: “If you talk to strangers online, assume they are spies until proven otherwise.”</p>
<p>Facebook estimated that <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2017/10/30/media/russia-facebook-126-million-users/index.html">126 million Americans</a> saw one of <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/11/what-we-found-facebook-ads-russians-accused-election-meddling/602319002/">more than 3,500 Russian-purchased ads</a> on its site. Twitter identified <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/10/31/russia-ads-facebook-twitter-google-congress/">nearly 40,000 Russia-linked accounts</a> that issued 1.5 million tweets, which were viewed a total of 288 million times. As a <a href="https://newhouse.syr.edu/faculty-staff/jennifer-grygiel">social media researcher and educator</a>, this shows the scale of people’s exposure to state propaganda and the potential to influence public opinion. But that’s not the really bad news. </p>
<p>According to the Mueller report, some U.S. citizens even helped Russian government agents organize real-life events, aiding the propaganda campaign, possibly without knowing that’s what they were doing. There’s a whole section of the report called “<a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf#page=39">Targeting and Recruitment of U.S. Persons</a>,” detailing how Russian agents approached people through direct messages on social media, as part of their efforts to sow discord and division in order to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. </p>
<p>Mueller doesn’t say why these people let themselves be manipulated into participating. But this Russian victory, the co-opting of Americans against their own democratic processes, happened because the Russian government used old-school influence techniques on new social media platforms. Online predators with harmful agendas often use the same tricks, so learn to protect yourself.</p>
<h2>Cooperate cautiously</h2>
<p>Mainly, the Russians exploited what is called the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0157">drive to cooperate</a>, an ingrained part of human nature that encourages people to work with others. It’s why you stop when you see someone stumble or drop something, or why you hold a door for a person carrying a lot of bags.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271069/original/file-20190425-121245-1pjssmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271069/original/file-20190425-121245-1pjssmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271069/original/file-20190425-121245-1pjssmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271069/original/file-20190425-121245-1pjssmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271069/original/file-20190425-121245-1pjssmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271069/original/file-20190425-121245-1pjssmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271069/original/file-20190425-121245-1pjssmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271069/original/file-20190425-121245-1pjssmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s natural to want to offer a helping hand.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/couple-helped-us-push-car-broken-266563883">TORWAISTUDIO/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This human trait may have been better suited for times when people didn’t interact so much online with strangers – but rather a world where people used to interact primarily in real life with family, friends, neighbors, colleagues and classmates. Now, though, online interactions link people across the world through targeted advertising, specific search results, social media hashtags and corporate algorithms that suggest who else a person should connect with. These connections may seem as strong as in-person ones, but they carry much more risk for exploitation of human kindness and the need for belonging.</p>
<p>Generally speaking, social media accounts aren’t verified, which is a means of authenticating that an online account matches the identity of an actual person or organization in real life. Accounts are often anonymous, and it’s very easy and common for people to set up <a href="https://www.thestreet.com/technology/twitter-facebook-fakes-fraud-inauthentic-behavior-14860389">fake profiles</a> that look like a real person. It is difficult to know for certain whom you’re interacting with or what they actually want out of your connection. </p>
<p>Thankfully, research has shown that people have defense mechanisms to avoid deception or what platforms have dubbed “<a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/daveyalba/facebook-removes-inauthentic-engagement-philippines-nic">inauthentic behavior</a>.” Americans being targeted by Russians aren’t just sitting ducks – they have innate skills, if they remember to use them.</p>
<h2>Reciprocate thoughtfully</h2>
<p>Research on influence and its abuse shows how persuasion works and focuses on principles such as <a href="https://hbr.org/2013/07/the-uses-and-abuses-of-influence">reciprocity</a> – the act of returning favors and things like gifts for mutual benefit. This can be a small gesture, like friends taking turns buying drinks for each other. Online, it could be even smaller: Seeing someone share your post or respond to a comment you made can cause you to want to reply or like the post on their page.</p>
<p>To avoid being duped, check things out before you reciprocate. If you and another person in an online group are interacting in public view – sharing posts and making and liking comments – it’s probably fine. But if they then send you a direct message asking for a favor or to run an errand, keep your wits about you. You still have no idea who they are, what they do for work, what their name might be or even what country they live in.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271068/original/file-20190425-121220-wjea8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271068/original/file-20190425-121220-wjea8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271068/original/file-20190425-121220-wjea8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271068/original/file-20190425-121220-wjea8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271068/original/file-20190425-121220-wjea8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271068/original/file-20190425-121220-wjea8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271068/original/file-20190425-121220-wjea8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271068/original/file-20190425-121220-wjea8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">If an online ‘friend’ asks you to dress up like Santa, maybe be skeptical.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/funny-santa-claus-wearing-red-costume-524102818">Roman Samborskyi/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Be especially cautious if they, for instance, ask you to <a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf#page=40">wear a Santa Claus suit and a mask of Donald Trump’s face</a> around your city. At least one American did this, according to the Mueller report. Consider Skyping them first, or seeing if they can speak to you without the aid of Google Translate or if their <a href="https://datingtips.match.com/online-dating-5471027.html">voice matches the gender</a> they state on their profile.</p>
<h2>Join forces skeptically</h2>
<p>The Russian government also targeted close-knit communities with strong senses of shared identity, which scholars call “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.08.006">oneness</a>.” They created <a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf#page=33">online groups and pages</a> that pretended to support and participate in the Black Lives Matter movement and the LGBTQ communities.</p>
<p>It’s clear that any identity-based online group could prove an easy target, so be careful when joining and affiliating with them, especially if you do not personally know the organizers in real life.</p>
<p>There are so many different situations where influence techniques could exploit aspects of human nature that it’s impossible to outline all the potential scenarios. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271076/original/file-20190425-121245-ox4n6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271076/original/file-20190425-121245-ox4n6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271076/original/file-20190425-121245-ox4n6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=830&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271076/original/file-20190425-121245-ox4n6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=830&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271076/original/file-20190425-121245-ox4n6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=830&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271076/original/file-20190425-121245-ox4n6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1042&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271076/original/file-20190425-121245-ox4n6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1042&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271076/original/file-20190425-121245-ox4n6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1042&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An example of a Russian propaganda ad on Facebook.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://intelligence.house.gov/hpsci-11-1/">U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In his book “<a href="https://www.harpercollins.com/9780061241895/influence/">Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion</a>,” psychologist Robert Cialdini offers a general rule to help defend against being swept into an influence campaign: Be on guard if you have a feeling of liking a contact more quickly, or more deeply, than you would have expected. Simply put, trust warnings from your gut if you’re starting to notice things are moving really quickly with someone you barely know. That’s especially true if this is an online friend, and even more so if the person regularly posts images of identity-based memes (known as memeplexes), like bald eagles (patriotism memeplex), rainbows (LGBT memeplex) or Jesus (Christian memeplex).</p>
<p>In an age where governments sow global political instability by exploiting social media and interpersonal trust, it’s more important than ever to be skeptical of people you connect with – not only online, but in line at Starbucks.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116034/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Grygiel owns a small number of shares in the following social media companies: Facebook, Google, Twitter, Alibaba, LinkedIn, YY and Snap.</span></em></p>The Mueller report reveals that some U.S. citizens helped Russian government agents organize real-life events, aiding Russia’s propaganda campaign. Don’t be like them.Jennifer Grygiel, Assistant Professor of Communications (Social Media) & Magazine, Syracuse UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1159722019-04-25T10:33:03Z2019-04-25T10:33:03ZTrump accuses the UK of spying again – but intelligence agencies have learnt to ignore him<p>Donald Trump has repeated unverified claims that Britain’s intelligence agencies spied on his 2016 presidential campaign, a day after Buckingham Palace confirmed he would make a three-day state visit to the UK in June.</p>
<p>Trump was tweeting in response to former CIA analyst, Larry Johnson, who told the conservative One America News network, he believed the earlier claims that had first emerged in 2017 to be true. “It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be a beauty,” Trump tweeted.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1121006942502182913"}"></div></p>
<p>Trump’s tweet prompted another rebuke from the UK’s intelligence, cyber and security agency, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). “The allegations that GCHQ was asked to conduct ‘wire tapping’ against the then President Elect are nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored,” a <a href="https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-espionage/after-trump-tweet-gchq-says-claim-it-spied-on-trump-is-utterly-ridiculous-idUKKCN1S01IC">GCHQ spokesperson</a> told Reuters news agency.</p>
<p>In 2017, Sean Spicer, who was White House press secretary at the time, repeated allegations originally made by Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano that president Barack Obama had “used GCHQ”. American officials were quick to dismiss the claims, showing a “complete lack of understanding” of US-UK intelligence relations. “It would be epically stupid,” said <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/18/politics/robert-ledgett-donald-trump-gchq/index.html">one official</a>. GCHQ were quick to issue an unprecedented rebuke, and US officials promptly denied the claims, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39300191">saying</a> they would “not repeat” them, following pressure from UK officials.</p>
<p>So is there any truth behind the claims? Well, no. For conspiracy theorists and believers in the “deep state”, the GCHQ story is a useful tangent. The idea that Trump is the victim of a wider conspiracy has been a major theme of his latest outbursts, following the publication of special counsel Robert Mueller’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/robert-mueller-38819">report</a> on Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 campaign. The problem is that conspiracies are quick to form, and difficult to erase, despite evidence to the contrary.</p>
<p>Johnson, who provoked Trump’s latest outburst, was the <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/gchq-michelle-obama-john-kerry-hoax-a7636996.htm">source</a> of the original GCHQ story. He was also the source of other <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/gchq-michelle-obama-john-kerry-hoax-a7636996.html">equally outrageous claims</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia">Reports</a> quoting sources from both UK and US intelligence agencies – and supported by European agencies – do, however, suggest that GCHQ found out about “interactions” between Russian agents and figures close to Trump’s inner circle in 2015. The issue was deemed so sensitive it was handled at director level by GCHQ’s then director Robert Hannigan, who shared the material with CIA head John Brennan. There is no suggestion that GCHQ was investigating Trump, rather that the contacts showed up in routine surveillance of Russian intelligence.</p>
<p>But despite evidence to the contrary, the GCHQ connection has remained a useful bogey for “deep state” believers and Trump himself. </p>
<h2>Keep calm and carry on</h2>
<p>But while the president seems happy to attack the UK, just days after his state visit was confirmed, the special relationship between intelligence agencies is resilient. Just as Trump’s earlier claims of wiretapping were dismissed by officials on both sides of the Atlantic, the same will happen in this case.</p>
<p>While politicians will never see eye-to-eye, officials in GCHQ and its US counterpart, the National Security Agency (NSA), realise that intelligence sharing is vital to mutual security. In the 1970s, despite president Richard Nixon’s best efforts to cut off <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/24/intelligence-sharing-codebreakers-agreement-ukusa">vital sharing arrangements</a>, intelligence officials found new ways to share information. The mutual threats of Russia, China and international terrorism, mean there’s too much at stake. The longevity of the alliance, geography and language are other important factors.</p>
<p>The GCHQ story is an unwelcome distraction in transatlantic relations, but its impact will be short lived. Intelligence officials will just shrug their shoulders and continue their work.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115972/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dan Lomas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The president says major revelations are coming. GCHQ says he’s talking nonsense.Dan Lomas, Programme Leader, MA Intelligence and Security Studies, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1157512019-04-22T10:46:53Z2019-04-22T10:46:53ZDid Trump obstruct justice? 5 questions Congress must answer<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270155/original/file-20190419-28113-ql6bg6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Pages from Robert Mueller's final report on the special counsel investigation into Donald Trump, which show heavy redaction by the Department of Justice.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump-Russia-Probe/c3fab27e4a864872b0262e5e3677e9e6/1/0">AP Photo/Jon Elswick</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President of the United States did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. … However, we are unable to reach that judgment.”</p>
<p>That was <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/STViT5K/mueller-report-volume-2.pdf#page=7">special counsel Robert Mueller’s blunt conclusion</a> about whether President Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice. It’s found early in Mueller’s report of his <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/russia-probe-timeline-moscow-mueller/story?id=57427441">22-month investigation</a> into potentially criminal aspects of Donald Trump’s campaign and presidency.</p>
<p>Mueller’s <a href="https://graphics.axios.com/docs/mueller-report.pdf">full report</a> – <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/us/politics/mueller-report.html">submitted to the Department of Justice</a> on March 22 and published online with redactions on April 19 – highlights 10 areas in which the president may have committed obstruction of justice. I’ve read this 400-page document closely, and judging as a <a href="https://law.unlv.edu/faculty/david-orentlicher">law professor and former elected official</a>, I find multiple episodes that describe possible crimes. </p>
<p>These include: firing FBI Director James Comey, who was overseeing an investigation into possible collusion between Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government; attempting to curtail the special counsel’s investigation and fire Mueller; and making statements that could have discouraged former campaign aides from testifying truthfully.</p>
<p>After reviewing all Mueller’s evidence, Attorney General William Barr determined that the president did not obstruct justice. But Mueller concluded that he could <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html#g-page-3">neither charge nor exonerate Trump</a>, and indicated that Congress should consider the evidence.</p>
<p>Here’s how lawmakers will determine whether Trump committed a crime.</p>
<h2>1. Did Trump act ‘corruptly’?</h2>
<p>According to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505">federal law</a>, obstruction occurs when a person tries to impede or influence a trial, investigation or other official proceeding with threats or corrupt intent. Bribing a judge and destroying evidence are classic examples of obstruction.</p>
<p>Other actions may constitute obstruction, depending on the context. The law requires that there be both an intent to obstruct and that the subject acted, as Mueller writes, “in a manner that is <em>likely</em> to obstruct justice.”</p>
<p>For example, when national security adviser Michael Flynn became a target in the FBI’s investigation of Russian election interference, Trump on Feb. 14, 2017 held a <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/STViT5K/mueller-report-volume-2.pdf#page=45">private meeting with Comey</a> in the Oval Office. </p>
<p>There, according to Comey, he said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” </p>
<p>Soon after, Trump <a href="https://www.cnn.com/specials/politics/james-comey-firing">fired Comey</a>. Flynn ultimately <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/01/politics/michael-flynn-charged/index.html">pleaded guilty</a> of lying to the FBI about his conversation with Russia’s ambassador and is <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/michael-flynn-sentencing.html">awaiting sentencing</a>.</p>
<p>These episodes would <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/26/mueller-trump-obstruction-of-justice-russia-216532">constitute obstruction of justice</a> if Trump pressured and then fired Comey for “<a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/was-firing-james-comey-obstruction-justice">corrupt</a>” – meaning willfully improper – reasons, and if these actions were likely to impede the FBI’s investigation.</p>
<h2>2. Did Trump have criminal intent?</h2>
<p>Determining intent is tricky for prosecutors. It requires them to make a subjective judgment about the suspect’s state of mind. </p>
<p>If Trump fired Comey in an effort to prevent the FBI from discovering incriminating information about him or his campaign, that would be “corrupt.”</p>
<p>Other reasons would not rise to the level of corrupt intent.</p>
<p>Mueller found that a key factor for Trump’s dismissal of Comey appears to have been concern that the FBI’s investigation was casting a cloud over his presidency and hurting his ability to govern. As president, Trump has the executive power to choose the FBI director he thinks is best suited to the job.</p>
<p>Congress will apply this “corrupt intent” standard to all the incidents of possible obstruction outlined in Mueller’s report.</p>
<h2>3. Was interference likely?</h2>
<p>Assessing whether a given action is “likely” to interfere in an investigation is a more objective determination.</p>
<p>The Mueller report is unambiguous about the negative implications of Trump’s discussion with Comey about “letting [Flynn] go.” </p>
<p>“The circumstances of the conversation show that the President was asking Comey to close the FBI’s investigation into Flynn,” it <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/STViT5K/mueller-report-volume-2.pdf#page=50">reads</a>, citing Trump’s insistence on meeting alone with Comey as evidence that the president “did not want anyone else to hear” him requesting that a federal inquiry be terminated.</p>
<p>Mueller also concludes that Trump’s expressions of “hope” would reasonably be understood as a directive when issued by a president to his subordinate. </p>
<h2>4. Is the sum greater than its parts?</h2>
<p>Sometimes a single action or statement that alone does not constitute an illegal act may demonstrate obstruction of justice when viewed alongside other incidents, because it creates a pattern of “corrupt” behavior.</p>
<p>Trump’s behavior toward Comey, for example, looks most damning when viewed alongside his many efforts to block the special counsel’s work. </p>
<p>Those include Trump’s <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mueller-report-white-house-counsel-don-mcgahn-refused-trump-order-to-fire-mueller-wary-of-saturday-night-massacre/">request to White House counsel Don McGahn</a> to have Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/STViT5K/mueller-report-volume-2.pdf#page=85">fire Mueller</a>. That happened in May 2017, once it became <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/STViT5K/mueller-report-volume-2.pdf#page=94">clear</a> that the special counsel would be investigating Trump for obstruction of justice. </p>
<p>Trump also pushed former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/STViT5K/mueller-report-volume-2.pdf#page=98">take charge of the Mueller investigation</a>, from which he had previously <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/politics/jeff-sessions-russia-trump-investigation-democrats.html">recused himself</a> citing conflict of interest, and asking Sessions to narrow its scope.</p>
<p>These episodes are just a few of the the dozen or so incidents that, together, indicate Donald Trump may have conspired to obstruct justice in 2017 and 2018.</p>
<h2>5. Can obstruction occur if collusion didn’t?</h2>
<p>In defending the president, Attorney General Barr has pointed to one important factor: Mueller found <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html">insufficient evidence</a> to conclude that Trump ever colluded with Russia, which would have been illegal.</p>
<p>Legally, however, obstruction can occur even in the absence of an underlying crime. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270153/original/file-20190419-28103-9y35g8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270153/original/file-20190419-28103-9y35g8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270153/original/file-20190419-28103-9y35g8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/270153/original/file-20190419-28103-9y35g8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/270153/original/file-20190419-28103-9y35g8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/270153/original/file-20190419-28103-9y35g8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/270153/original/file-20190419-28103-9y35g8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/270153/original/file-20190419-28103-9y35g8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Trump has repeatedly insisted, ‘No collusion. No obstruction.’ But the law says otherwise.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump/04a0546062d84ce098dbdf40468a5c87/16/0">AP Photo/Andrew Harnik</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Trump could have interfered in the FBI and special counsel investigations not to protect himself from collusion charges but to avoid scrutiny of his financial relationships with Russia or to protect members of his family or inner circle. </p>
<p>Six Trump staffers were <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/21/us/mueller-trump-charges.html">indicted during Mueller’s investigation</a>.</p>
<h2>Trump’s verdict will come in 2020</h2>
<p>The president has celebrated the Mueller report’s release as the <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/18/before-mueller-report-donald-trump-again-denounces-russia-hoax/3505336002/">end</a> of federal investigations into his administration.</p>
<p>But congressional inquiries into the president <a href="https://theconversation.com/mueller-report-how-congress-can-and-will-follow-up-on-an-incomplete-and-redacted-document-115686">are just beginning</a>. And further investigation might find evidence of other kinds of presidential misconduct.</p>
<p>In his report, Mueller wrote that Congress may decide to apply obstruction statutes to the president “in accordance with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”</p>
<p>Committing obstruction of justice or other misconduct may constitute the kind of “high crime or misdemeanor” necessary to <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-happens-next-with-the-mueller-report-3-essential-reads-115765">start impeachment proceedings</a>. Several Democratic lawmakers have now called for impeachment. So far, however, House leadership shows <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/18/democrats-impeachment-mueller-trump-1282488">little appetite</a> for impeachment, which would need bipartisan support in the Republican-led Senate to succeed in removing Trump from office. </p>
<p>Absent irrefutable new evidence of criminality that changes the minds of Republican lawmakers and voters, the American public will render its verdict on Trump’s presidency in November 2020.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115751/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Orentlicher is a former state representative and is active in Democratic politics. </span></em></p>Mueller’s report describes more than a dozen times Trump may have broken the law. Here’s how Congress will decide whether the president obstructed justice during federal probes into his presidency.David Orentlicher, Professor of Law and Co-Director, Health Law Program, University of Nevada, Las VegasLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1156862019-04-18T23:12:45Z2019-04-18T23:12:45ZMueller report: How Congress can and will follow up on an incomplete and redacted document<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270077/original/file-20190418-28084-1jkig0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Morning clouds cover Capitol Hill in Washington, April 12, 2019</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Washington-Daily-Life-Congress/2c211910907843349a17e76c9f7ba756/29/0">AP/J. Scott Applewhite</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://time.com/5567077/mueller-report-release/">release on April 18 of a redacted version of the Mueller report</a> came after two years of allegations, speculation and insinuation – but not a lot of official information about what really happened between the Trump campaign and Russia. </p>
<p>Nor had there been much light shed on whether the president tried to obstruct the investigation into his campaign.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190418155122/https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf">report</a> prepared by <a href="https://www.justice.gov/sco">special counsel Robert Mueller</a> and issued by the Justice Department provided greater detail about those questions. And it offered more information about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. </p>
<p>The Trump administration will want to argue that <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/trump-allies-dismiss-mueller-report-details-claim-total-vindication.html">the release of the Mueller report is the end of investigating</a> the Russia scandal. </p>
<p>On the contrary, the version of the report released is only the start of wide-ranging and intensive House investigations. </p>
<p>I served as <a href="http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.viewContributors&bioid=75">special deputy chief counsel of the House Iran-contra investigation</a> of the Reagan administration. We did <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31210016413021;view=1up;seq=3">months of hearings</a> on the type of material that is either incomplete or redacted, as today’s Congress will find, in the Mueller report.</p>
<p>Here are some of the ways the House will likely follow up with more investigation. </p>
<h2>1. Bring in witnesses to testify</h2>
<p>The House will call some of the witnesses mentioned in the report for their full story, not just their cameo appearance in this incomplete report. </p>
<p>For example, <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/18/18411170/mueller-report-release-doj-trump-mcgahn-flynn">the report has the public’s first account</a> from Michael T. Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser. So, there are a number of contacts mentioned for the first time on the public record between Flynn and Russia that in my reading consistently demonstrate Trump’s partiality to Putin and Russia. </p>
<p>But, until we get a House public hearing with Flynn as a witness, we will not know the full story. </p>
<p>Why did Trump have such a strong bond with Putin? Did Trump have a personal reason, not some foreign policy reason, to favor Russia? Why did Trump push Flynn to be favorable to Russia? </p>
<p>The report does not say. </p>
<p>With Flynn, as with many others, the report is the start, not the finish, of getting the full story.</p>
<h2>2. Intelligence committee investigation</h2>
<p>Attorney General Barr has announced that a <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/17/politics/redacted-mueller-report-congress/index.html">“less redacted” version</a> is, or will be, prepared for a few congressional figures. Presumably he means that the classified parts of the report that describe secret intelligence, which have been redacted, will be shown to the congressional leadership. </p>
<p>But, the leadership cannot itself undertake an investigation. </p>
<p>This is the kind of material that normally goes to the entire <a href="https://intelligence.house.gov/">House Intelligence Committee</a>. That committee can follow up with demands for documents and closed hearings. And that committee has the trusted expertise to determine that the conclusions of their inquiry can be made public, either via open hearings or by report to the House and the public. </p>
<p>The committee could determine what is actually known by investigators about how Russia viewed Trump and what Russia may have done that secured Trump’s favor.</p>
<h2>3. Release grand jury information</h2>
<p>Furthermore, the report redacts not just classified information, but grand jury information as well. And Barr may well have omitted, rather than redacted, invaluable grand jury evidence, especially documents. </p>
<p>These could be released by the attorney general to Congress with a court order under what is called <a href="https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/frcrimp/rule6/">Federal Criminal Rule 6(e)</a>. </p>
<p>Barr <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/william-barr-house-appropriations-hearing_n_5ca7a84be4b0a00f6d3f77e8">refused at congressional hearings</a> to seek such an order. But, under sufficient pressure from Congress – against the background of a public that wants the full report and the full story – he could reconsider. </p>
<p>In the Watergate scandal, the prosecutors got <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1974/01/23/archives/the-nixon-inquiry-exceptions-to-grand-jury-secrecy-prosecution.html">exactly such a court order</a> so they could make invaluable evidence available to the House Judiciary Committee.</p>
<h2>4. Limit what’s limited by ‘HOM’</h2>
<p>There is a great deal of key material redacted in the report with Barr’s label, “HOM” or “<a href="http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/the-most-redacted-sections-of-the-mueller-report.html">Harm to Ongoing Matter</a>.” That means the redacted material likely relates to an ongoing investigation by law enforcement.</p>
<p>This appears to have been done with a very broad brush. Under pressure from the House, backed by the public, this could be treated by Barr with a fine scalpel instead.</p>
<p>For example, one of the most promising avenues to investigate is the potential overlap between Russia’s attempts to help Trump, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-to-harm-hillary-clinton.html">WikiLeaks’ dissemination of material embarrassing to Hillary Clinton</a>, and <a href="https://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-democratic-convention-2016-live-donald-trump-invites-russia-to-hack-1469636224-htmlstory.html">Trump’s requests for help</a> in making material damaging to Clinton public. Who can forget Trump shouting, “<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-wikileaks-campaign-speeches-julian-assange-2017-11">I love WikiLeaks</a>”? </p>
<p>Yet, Barr’s broad-brush redactions wipe out a whole section on WikiLeaks. Presumably Barr is saying, by this redaction, that the case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is an <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/17/politics/assange-justice-department/index.html">ongoing matter</a>. </p>
<p>As the recent arrest of Assange makes clear, there is currently an investigation into his actions by the U.S., which has <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-assange/u-s-charges-assange-after-london-arrest-ends-seven-years-in-ecuador-embassy-idUSKCN1RN10R">charged him with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion</a>. That means that WikiLeaks’ interaction with the Trump campaign is not the heart of that judicial matter. Rather, the heart is about Assange working with hackers who stole the damaging material. </p>
<p>So the House should be allowed to pursue the part – WikiLeaks and its interactions with the Trump campaign – which is central to the House’s concerns but peripheral to prosecutors of Assange.</p>
<h2>5. Documents, documents, documents</h2>
<p>Finally, this is just Mueller’s report. Behind it is much more that would be of vital interest to congressional investigators and the public. </p>
<p>This 400-plus page report is not the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-trump-and-barr-could-stretch-claims-of-executive-privilege-and-grand-jury-secrecy-114166">underlying information alluded to in the report</a>, like copies of emails or other documents, that provides broader information about so many matters. </p>
<p>The House has every reason to seek and to receive the underlying information.</p>
<p>These various examples are just the beginning of what the House can seek to find as it takes off from the incomplete and redacted Mueller report. </p>
<p>When I was an attorney for the <a href="https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/thehearings.php">House Iran-contra Committee</a>, we received far more encouragement and cooperation from independent counsel <a href="https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/">Lawrence Walsh</a> than is promised by Barr. And we went on to dig up striking material during months of hearings. </p>
<p>I believe the House will now pick up where the Department of Justice has left off.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115686/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Tiefer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Mueller report is out, heavily redacted and the investigative materials it’s based on aren’t public. That’s where Congress comes in, writes a former House counsel. Now they can investigate.Charles Tiefer, Professor of law, University of BaltimoreLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1157652019-04-18T20:49:16Z2019-04-18T20:49:16ZWhat happens next with the Mueller report? 3 essential reads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270064/original/file-20190418-28106-87g8dp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Attorney General William Barr at an April 18 press conference about the public release of the special counsel’s report on Donald Trump.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump-Russia-Probe/c1f2dd364890466c8d41edd7eb1d08cb/11/0">AP Photo/Patrick Semansky</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>One month after Robert Mueller submitted the <a href="https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/f5fe536c-81bb-45be-86e5-a9fee9794664/note/a8d336ef-e98d-4a08-987d-b4c154b22700.pdf">final report</a> on his investigation into Donald Trump, its contents have finally been made public – meaning that the Department of Justice is no longer the only one analyzing and interpreting Mueller’s findings. </p>
<p>Attorney General William Barr has publicly stated his belief that Mueller’s inquiry exonerates the president of criminal wrongdoing. Now, the American public will get to draw its own conclusions. </p>
<p>Congress, state prosecutors and district attorneys nationwide, too, are digging into the Mueller report to decide whether Mueller found evidence that Trump obstructed justice, colluded with Russia or committed any impeachable offenses. Beyond Mueller’s federal inquiry, a dozen city and state prosecutors have <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/us/trump-investigations-new-york.html">launched investigations</a> into possible criminal wrongdoing by Trump, his family and his business.</p>
<p>As Mueller’s investigation evolves from political saga to legal analysis, here are three key threads our experts have been watching.</p>
<h2>1. Obstruction of justice</h2>
<p>Barr’s determination that Trump did not commit obstruction of justice differs from the conclusion Mueller drew in his own report. According to the special counsel, “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” </p>
<p>How can two people draw different conclusions from the same evidence?</p>
<p>“Obstruction of justice is a complicated matter,” <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-and-obstruction-of-justice-an-explainer-114270">writes law professor David Orentlicher of the University of Nevada-Las Vegas</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Barr’s March 24 letter to Congress summarizing the findings of Mueller’s report.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump-Russia-Probe/fb81cf81c274490e90b6a3d6b162287c/6/0">AP Photo/Jon Elswick</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>According to federal law, obstruction occurs when a person tries to impede or influence a trial, investigation or other official proceeding with threats or corrupt intent.</p>
<p>“Bribing a judge and destroying evidence are classic examples of this crime,” Orentlicher says.</p>
<p>But other actions may constitute obstruction too, depending on the context. And some actions that look like obstruction may not be, because the law requires a “corrupt” intention to obstruct justice as well.</p>
<p>President Trump did many things that influenced federal investigations into him and his aides, Orentlicher points out, including firing FBI Director James Comey, publicly attacking the special counsel’s work and pressuring former Attorney General Jeff Sessions not to recuse himself from overseeing Mueller’s investigation.</p>
<p>The legal question Congress and prosecutors nationwide must now determine is: Did he do so with “corrupt” intent?</p>
<h2>2. Who does the attorney general work for?</h2>
<p>In the April 18 press conference, Barr cited the White House’s “full cooperation” with Mueller’s investigation as evidence of “noncorrupt motives.”</p>
<p>Critics of the attorney general contend that Barr is not an objective authority on Trump’s behavior since he is a political appointee picked by Trump. </p>
<p>Barr, a veteran lawyer who previously served as President George H.W. Bush’s attorney general, also believes the Constitution <a href="https://theconversation.com/nominating-a-crony-loyalist-or-old-buddy-for-attorney-general-is-a-us-presidential-tradition-108160">gives the president almost unlimited power</a>, says Austin Sarat, a political scientist at Amherst College. Barr has referred to the attorney general – the government’s top prosecutor – as “<a href="https://m.cnn.com/en/article/h_8f34ccf949816e62148597dcff8769f3">the president’s lawyer</a>.” </p>
<p>So who does the attorney general work for? The question dates back centuries.</p>
<p>“The office of attorney general is not mentioned in the Constitution. It was created when the First Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789,” Sarat says. </p>
<p>That law that laid out such limited duties for the role that “the attorney general was to be a part-time official” reporting to the president, according to Sarat.</p>
<p>As a result, “throughout American history, there have been different visions of the role of the attorney general,” he writes.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Barr was handpicked by Trump to be in office when the Mueller report came in.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Alex Brandon/Jose Luis Magana</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>3. Impeachment</h2>
<p>Congress won’t only be reading Mueller’s report to determine whether Trump committed obstruction of justice. It’s likely that some Democratic lawmakers will also be looking for any indication that the president committed an impeachable offense.</p>
<p>In his report, special counsel Mueller appears to have acknowledged Congress’s role in going beyond the findings of his report. </p>
<p>“Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice,” he wrote. </p>
<p>The U.S. Constitution states that the president can be removed from office after being both impeached and convicted for “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”</p>
<p>What exactly constitutes a “high crime” or “misdemeanor,” however, has always been <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-trump-hasnt-been-impeached-and-likely-wont-be-100081">open to interpretation</a>, says University of Buffalo political scientist Jacob Neiheisel.</p>
<p>President Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 for perjury and obstruction of justice during the investigation into his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Articles of impeachment brought against President Richard Nixon in 1974 after Watergate accused him of obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt of Congress. </p>
<p>Neiheisel believes that “the articles of impeachment against Trump might look remarkably similar to those levied against Nixon and Clinton.” </p>
<p>Lawmakers actually drew up articles of impeachment against the president well before the Mueller report was released. </p>
<p>In November 2017, “five Democrats in the House accused the president of obstruction of justice related to the firing of FBI director James Comey, undermining the independence of the federal judiciary, accepting emoluments from a foreign government and other charges,” says Neiheisel.</p>
<p>House speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have previously sought to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/03/11/feature/nancy-pelosi-on-impeaching-president-trump-hes-just-not-worth-it/?utm_term=.ee430d08d816">tamp down any discussion of impeaching Trump</a>, believing that this extreme option should be pursued only if the evidence against the president was so compelling that impeachment proceedings would have broad bipartisan support. </p>
<p>Now that Mueller’s report is out, the debate over impeachment will arguably be much harder to quash. </p>
<p><em>This article is a round-up of stories from The Conversation’s archive.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115765/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The full report on the special counsel’s Trump investigation has now been made public. As people, Congress and prosecutors nationwide dig into Mueller’s findings, here are three key issues to watch.Catesby Holmes, International Editor | Politics Editor, The Conversation USLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1151882019-04-10T13:46:11Z2019-04-10T13:46:11ZTrump supporters on Twitter during 2016 US election show little evidence of Russian infiltration – new research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268416/original/file-20190409-2921-gcp0kq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The biggest little bird in the nest. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/donald-trump-social-media-communication-vector-656904574?src=idm7TVmH8D1Idr_BCQ0V9g-1-16">doamama</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Donald Trump’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/president">meteoric rise</a> from political outsider to president of the United States surprised nearly everyone – not least political analysts and scientists. Many are hoping for an easy explanation from the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-mueller-probe-kenneth-starr-sees-eerie-echoes-of-his-1990s-clinton-investigation-113509">Mueller report</a>, including evidence of heavy Russian interference in the campaign. Mueller <a href="http://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/robert-mueller-investigation-what-we-know.html">has indicted</a> numerous Russians in this regard, though more details will emerge when the report is published in the coming days. </p>
<p>In our <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0214854">new paper</a>, which has been published in the PLoS One journal, we have covered similar ground via Trump’s stronghold: Twitter. By sampling some 250,000 accounts, we found a powerful new group of Trump supporters emerged during the election and effectively usurped the Republican Party on the social network. But very much to our surprise, very few bots or Russian accounts were involved. This suggests that if the Russians were acting to influence the election, the effect at least on Twitter may have been much more limited than <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump">has been claimed</a>. </p>
<p>We identified three kinds of Twitter accounts that were particularly relevant to the election: a Republican Party group; a Trump group; and a group of more extreme <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/alt-right/549242/">alt-right</a> adherents. We classified accounts into these groups based on who they followed and the hashtags and other words that they used in posts. The Trump group often used #maga, for instance, as in “make America great again”, and also “Trump supporter”. Mainstream Republicans often used #tcot or #tgdn, respectively “top conservatives on Twitter” and “Twitter gulag defence network”; while the far right used the #altright hashtag and words like “white” and “nationalist”. </p>
<h2>What happened on Twitter</h2>
<p>When we looked at how these three groups had developed over time, we found the Republican accounts mainly dated from the <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tea-party-protesters-march-washington/story?id=8557120">Tea Party marches</a> following Barack Obama’s first election victory in 2008, and also the 2012 Obama vs Romney <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20216038">campaign</a>. Conversely, the Trump and alt-right groups had largely emerged during the 2016 election campaign. </p>
<p>By late 2016, very few new accounts were being opened that fit the characteristics of our Republican Twitter group. We found a big shift in following behaviour as well, with existing Republican accounts becoming more likely to follow accounts in our Trump group rather than other mainstream Republicans. This reflects the way in which Trump suddenly jumped ahead of a crowded field in the Republican primaries. When you combine the followers of the three Twitter groups, they amount to some 57m unique users: this almost certainly made the difference in an election where the margin of victory was so tight – remember Trump <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/us2016/results">beat</a> Hillary Clinton in the electoral college, but without winning the popular vote, winning key marginal states by only a few tens of thousands of votes. </p>
<p>But what drove support for this shift? Staying with following behaviour, we found that members of all three groups tended to follow people who came under the same group, while those that we identified within the Trump and Republican groups frequently followed one another. But while members of the alt-right group followed those in the Trump group, this was not reciprocated to the same degree. This suggests that the widely held idea that the far right were very influential in the growth of support for Trump may be an exaggeration. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268418/original/file-20190409-2912-smj0ue.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268418/original/file-20190409-2912-smj0ue.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268418/original/file-20190409-2912-smj0ue.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/268418/original/file-20190409-2912-smj0ue.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/268418/original/file-20190409-2912-smj0ue.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/268418/original/file-20190409-2912-smj0ue.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/268418/original/file-20190409-2912-smj0ue.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/268418/original/file-20190409-2912-smj0ue.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rarer than you’d think.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/donald-trump-social-media-communication-vector-656904574?src=idm7TVmH8D1Idr_BCQ0V9g-1-16">PP77LSK</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To estimate Twitter bots, we used a US tool called <a href="https://botometer.iuni.iu.edu">Botometer</a>, which scores each account on the likelihood that it is automated. We concluded that Twitter bots and <a href="https://www.recode.net/2017/11/2/16598312/russia-twitter-trump-twitter-deactivated-handle-list">foreign accounts</a> were certainly part of Trump’s Twitter community, and <a href="http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/politicalbots/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2016/11/Data-Memo-US-Election.pdf">played a role</a> in spreading his message, but were vastly outnumbered by the massive groups of real-life supporters who suddenly started joining Twitter and following one another after Trump announced his election campaign. In fact, we found more automated accounts in the Republican Party’s group than in Trump’s group. Our findings match <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/majority-americans-were-not-exposed-fake-news-2016-us-election-twitter-study-suggests">other recent research</a>, which found that fake news was not nearly as pervasive on Twitter and Facebook as previously feared; in the case of Twitter, for instance, 80% of fake news appeared on only 1.1% of users’ newsfeeds.</p>
<p>Our point is not that foreign-owned bots generating fake news didn’t interfere with the election, but rather that they probably had less influence than various other factors – particularly Trump himself, his group of highly motivated supporters and the US media. Trump’s supporters did not coalesce around an army of bots – they do appear to have been a grassroots movement of previously disengaged voters.
Trump’s victory seems more driven by his own particular style of campaigning, galvanising his followers into a political backlash against “Washington elites”. </p>
<p>These kinds of movements certainly aren’t unknown. Political analysts are very familiar with the concept of the <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/04/what-overton-window">Overton Window</a>, in which the political centre ground shifts in response to pressure from disenfranchised and frustrated groups on the fringes. In Trump’s case, the shift was surprisingly rapid. In only a few months, a relatively small group had grown to the point it was able to subsume the traditional Republican Party. </p>
<h2>Predicting the future</h2>
<p>Our era will long be remembered for the populist swings that took place in politics – not only Trump but elections in the likes of Hungary and Japan, and also the UK’s Brexit referendum. These results frequently surprised politicians and the media, prompting <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/03/opinion-polls-missed-trump-and-brexit-this-french-newspaper-says-it-has-the-solution/">much</a> discussion <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/macron-won-but-the-french-polls-were-way-off/">about</a> problems with the tools with which we have tracked people’s voting intentions. </p>
<p>We think that our method, or one derived from it, can be a valuable addition to the toolbox in future. By following the development of political groups on Twitter, you can observe what is happening in real time. In future, this could help identify disenfranchised voter groups amenable to populist candidates and better understand their behaviour and the issues that motivate them. Our method might also make it easier to determine when extremist political minorities, massively amplified by the global reach of Twitter, might be exerting a disproportionate level of influence. </p>
<p>Studying Twitter allows you to observe these things at a speed that traditional polling and analysis can’t match. Hopefully by studying the world of online political discourse in a more rigorous and systematic way like this, we can finally start to catch up with the breakneck speed of modern political change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115188/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Bryden receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eric Silverman receives funding from the Medical Research Council and the Chief Scientist Office as a member of the University of Glasgow's MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit. </span></em></p>On the back of the Mueller investigation’s apparent exoneration of the POTUS, here’s another surprise.John Bryden, Research Fellow, Royal Holloway University of LondonEric Silverman, Research Fellow, Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1144172019-04-08T10:45:17Z2019-04-08T10:45:17ZFor the ‘political-infotainment-media complex,’ the Mueller investigation was a gold mine<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267877/original/file-20190405-180041-3yot88.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In the first year of 'Russiagate' coverage, the combined profits from Fox News, MSNBC and CNN increased by 13 percent.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nick Lehr/The Conversation</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Almost 60 years ago, President Dwight Eisenhower <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY">warned</a> of a new force that fed off and profited from Cold War paranoia: the military-industrial complex.</p>
<p>Over the past couple of years, with Russia reappearing on the airwaves, a new corporate sector profiting from induced anxiety poses just as big a threat. </p>
<p>Let’s call it the political-infotainment-media complex. </p>
<p>On March 22, Robert Mueller <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/mueller-report-was-just-delivered-what-happens-now-n985986">delivered his sealed report</a> on the narrowly defined charge of “collusion” to Attorney General William Barr. After 22 months of hype – a period in which it was <a href="http://tyndallreport.com/yearinreview2017/">the most covered story in America</a> – “Russiagate” seemed to end with a whimper. Neither reporters nor the public have read the Mueller report, but that hasn’t stopped <a href="https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million">rampant speculation</a> over what’s in the report, who “lost” and who “won.”</p>
<p>None of this analysis, however, explores the larger structural problems in today’s media environment. Why was this story covered to the extent it was? What does it say about the incentive model in place for corporate media outlets? </p>
<p><a href="https://bellisario.psu.edu/people/individual/matthew-jordan">As a media scholar</a> trying to understand today’s rapidly changing media landscape, I view the Mueller investigation coverage as a direct symptom of a political-infotainment-media complex that has blurred the lines between tabloid soap operas and respectable journalism. </p>
<h2>Infotainment is the hook</h2>
<p>To understand what happened with coverage of the Mueller investigation – and is already happening again in its second act – it’s important to understand the incentives of media networks, old and new. </p>
<p>In his seminal work “<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=c3pK97NgNPIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Television:+Technology+and+Cultural+Form&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3h8jIgbfhAhWvs1kKHfI0BxQQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false">Television: Technology and Cultural Form</a>,” media critic Raymond Williams explained how, in the early days of television, people would often tune in for a single program and then turn off the TV. </p>
<p>But television networks soon figured out they could maximize advertising revenue if people watched all of a network’s shows, one after the other. TV producers, using commercials and promotions for other shows as a connective glue, strove to create a “flow” from one show to the next.</p>
<p>This cultivation technique is still on full display – we see it when cable news hosts pass the baton from one show to the next. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yJoxohZ6MFg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Rachel Maddow will ‘hand off’ to Lawrence O'Donnell, creating a seamless transition.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But there is also something new going on. Stories like the Mueller investigation transcend individual networks and play out across all outlets, with each adapting the storyline for its particular audience. Sustaining itself beyond a particular news cycle, the investigation has played out like one epic television series – a perfect example of how the political infotainment sector profits from serial stories with long narrative arcs, cliff hangers and periodic revelations. </p>
<p>The more convoluted the story, the more audiences are drawn to preferred networks to confirm their biases. The more outlets tease the “bombshell,” the more it feeds interest. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267654/original/file-20190404-123397-dtfguj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There were enough ‘bombshells’ in the coverage of the Mueller investigation to wipe out a city.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Video/201901/n_msnbc_radford_mitchell_190113_1920x1080.jpg">MSNBC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Speculation pays off</h2>
<p>For much of the past century, journalism was grounded in <a href="http://www.nupress.northwestern.edu/content/journalism-and-realism">restrained realism</a>, with dispassionate objectivity tied to professional norms.</p>
<p>But many of today’s mainstream media outlets follow something like the profit-minded business model of the original purveyor of “fake news,” <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-century-ago-progressives-were-the-ones-shouting-fake-news-90614">William Randolph Hearst</a>. Hearst sought to “fournish” a war that he could serialize and monetize, and he famously goaded the American public into war against Spain <a href="https://medium.com/covilian-military-intelligence-group/you-furnish-the-pictures-and-ill-furnish-the-war-67de6c0e1210">with disinformation dressed up as news</a>.</p>
<p>“Don’t be afraid to make a mistake,” <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=n4p0O97RntAC&lpg=PA165&dq=%22don't%20be%20afraid%20to%20make%20a%20mistake%2C%20your%20readers%20might%20like%20it%22&pg=PA165#v=onepage&q=%22don't%20be%20afraid%20to%20make%20a%20mistake,%20your%20readers%20might%20like%20it%22&f=false">Hearst once advised</a>. “Your readers might like it.” </p>
<p>Today’s media business model doesn’t reward patience and scrupulous fact-checking. To do so is to risk missing out on clicks, eyeballs and ad revenue. </p>
<p>Furthermore, today’s outlets can easily profit from misinformation and speculation. </p>
<p>Each mistake – say, a front-page story about <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.d0f403dfba5f">how the Russians hacked America’s electrical grid</a> – might require a retraction or an apology. But during its lifespan, that same mistake can boost profits, ratings and advertising revenue.</p>
<p>Once speculating about news is no longer seen as a problem and becomes a normal part of production, a whole new line of infotainment becomes available. </p>
<p>The Mueller investigation, which featured a tight-lipped investigator, created an enormous vacuum for speculation – for hundreds of round tables and panels featuring lawyers, politicians, political consultants and intelligence officers to theorize over the next twist, the latest clues and possible outcomes. Of course, it didn’t hurt that the story involved espionage, sex, celebrity, corruption and betrayal.</p>
<h2>Trolling for dollars</h2>
<p>With every subpoena, indictment or denial related to Trump’s connection to Russia, the dollars rolled in.</p>
<p>In the first year of Russiagate, total profits from cable news’ big three – Fox News, MSNBC and CNN – <a href="https://www.journalism.org/fact-sheet/cable-news/">increased by 13 percent</a>. </p>
<p>In 2018, during peak Mueller investigation coverage, MSNBC’s <a href="https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/2018-ratings-fox-news-is-the-most-watched-network-on-cable-for-the-third-straight-year/387943">ratings rose by 10 percent during prime-time hours</a>. “The Rachel Maddow Show” rode the serial story to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2019/02/26/cable-news-ratings-rachel-maddow-is-no-1-and-so-is-sean-hannity/#ce8762d77301">the top ranking among the coveted 25- to 54-year-old demographic</a>. During one six-week period in July and August 2017, Maddow covered the story <a href="http://inthesetimes.com/article/21486/Robert-Mueller-russiagate-Trump-Rachel-Maddow">more than all other news topics combined</a>. </p>
<p>For 22 months, networks like CNN and MSNBC sold hope that a white knight would save the country from a corrupt villain, and that the looming event Twitter users dubbed “#MuellerTime” would lead to catharsis and relief. Ratings soared, so the network had no incentive to change its tune. </p>
<p>Hundreds of subsidiary media outlets emerged to meet the emotional needs of like-minded consumers with new content and repurposed bites that circulated through social media. Views and clicks increased. It didn’t matter whether media producers were agreeing with or inveighing against the Mueller-will-save-us storyline. The incentives guaranteed serial repetition.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, #Resistance Twitter stars like Seth Abramson fed followers open-sourced reports and pulled together various strands <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/resistance-twitter-star-seth-abramson-wants-to-turn-his-threads-into-a-book">to create coherent narratives</a> that he eventually spun into gold with his best-selling book “<a href="https://twitter.com/SethAbramson?lang=en">Proof of Conspiracy</a>.” Fans waited with baited breath for Abramson’s lengthy threads and responded with popcorn-eating gifs as they ate up his analysis in real time.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1079522200657510400"}"></div></p>
<p>Across the spectacular chasm dividing American politics, Fox News has also profited from Russiagate by pushing an epic defense narrative. Beginning each day with “Fox and Friends,” which <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/05/trump-media-feedback-loop-216248">Trump often live-tweets to his 59.5 million followers</a>, the network has stoked audience rage with disinformation about villainous “deranged” Democrats besieging their celebrity savior to try to reverse the results of the 2016 election.</p>
<p>A pro-Trump audience has made Sean Hannity’s nightly show <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2019/02/26/cable-news-ratings-rachel-maddow-is-no-1-and-so-is-sean-hannity/#ce8762d77301">number one in overall viewership</a> across cable news networks. These intensely loyal viewers managed their hopes and fears by scouring the internet to confirm Fox’s narrative, joining <a href="https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/right-wing-twitter/">like-minded media fans</a> to rage against the investigation using hashtags like <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/witchhunt?lang=en">#WitchHunt</a> or <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RussiaHoax?src=hash&lang=en">#RussiaHoax</a>.</p>
<h2>Striking digital gold</h2>
<p>Media scholars are only beginning to come to term with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929918807483">the significance</a> of this new mode of passionate engagement with politics through social media. </p>
<p>One thing is clear: Pro-Trump and pro-Mueller audiences have been a gold mine for social media outlets like Twitter.</p>
<p>In 2017, market analysis revealed that <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-17/what-is-trump-worth-to-twitter-one-analyst-estimates-2-billion">roughly one-fifth of Twitter’s value was generated by Trump-related traffic</a>. “Russiagate” made Trump’s Twitter finger <a href="http://www.trumptwitterarchive.com/archive">particularly itchy</a> – he has tweeted the words “Witch Hunt” 185 times, “Mueller” 96 times and “collusion” 185 times. </p>
<p>The increased engagement pushed <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2018/10/25/twitter-q3-2018/">profits from its digital licensing division to $108 million</a> as the company sold data-driven predictions of users’ future behavior to would-be advertisers and political campaigns. </p>
<p>Perhaps the instant gratification and additional revenue stream of social media has pushed more traditional cable news outlets and newspapers into frothier, melodramatic territory to maximize their market potential.</p>
<p>But the political infotainment media complex doesn’t see speculation and melodrama as a journalistic problem that needs to be fixed; it’s a business model that’s becoming ingrained.</p>
<p>Until there can be a <a href="http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/12/we-will-finally-confront-systemic-market-failure/">public model for producing slower, less sensational and more careful journalism</a> – one that aims to separate truth from speculation and is inoculated from the quick lure of scooping-for-profit – Americans will be vulnerable to its unwarranted influence over political life. </p>
<p>For when the political-infotainment-media complex latches on to a serial story that feeds its profit centers, the stories that need to be covered for our democracy to properly function get left on the cutting room floor.</p>
<p>No matter what surprises or twists next season delivers, we’ll continue to miss the bigger picture.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114417/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Jordan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For the rest of us, it’s another sign of the country’s eroding media and political landscape.Matthew Jordan, Associate Professor of Media Studies, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1143982019-03-28T10:39:20Z2019-03-28T10:39:20ZWhat you need to know about the Mueller report: 4 essential reads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270046/original/file-20190418-28094-d3vbs7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Attorney General William Barr at an April 18 press conference about the public release of the special counsel's report on Donald Trump. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump-Russia-Probe/c1f2dd364890466c8d41edd7eb1d08cb/11/0">AP Photo/Patrick Semansky</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The political saga triggered by the special counsel investigation into Donald Trump, which has cast such a long shadow over his presidency, will continue long after the inquiry’s end.</p>
<p>According to U.S. Attorney General William Barr, prosecutor Robert Mueller <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/03/22/638169023/robert-mueller-submits-report-on-russia-investigation-to-attorney-general-barr">determined that Trump’s campaign did not collude with Russia</a> to influence the 2016 presidential election. The special counsel did not make a conclusion about whether Trump committed obstruction of justice.</p>
<p>Because Barr has not made Mueller’s more than 300-page report public, his exact findings remain unknown. Congressional Democrats are demanding access to the full report by April 2 to see what Mueller uncovered during his 22-month investigation into the president.</p>
<p>As this federal probe turns into a partisan battle, here are four key threads our experts have been watching.</p>
<h2>1. Obstruction of justice</h2>
<p>In a March 24 letter to Congress summarizing Mueller’s findings, Barr wrote that the evidence collected is “not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”</p>
<p>That differs from Mueller’s conclusion. He wrote that “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” </p>
<p>How can two people draw different conclusions from the same evidence?</p>
<p>“Obstruction of justice is a complicated matter,” <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-and-obstruction-of-justice-an-explainer-114270">writes law professor David Orentlicher of the University of Nevada-Las Vegas</a>.</p>
<p>According to federal law, obstruction occurs when a person tries to impede or influence a trial, investigation or other official proceeding with threats or corrupt intent.</p>
<p>“Bribing a judge and destroying evidence are classic examples of this crime,” Orentlicher says.</p>
<p>But other actions may constitute obstruction too, depending on the context. And some actions that look like obstruction may not be, because the law requires a “corrupt” intention to obstruct justice as well.</p>
<p>President Trump did many things that influenced federal investigations into him and his aides, Orentlicher points out, including firing FBI Director James Comey and publicly attacking the special counsel’s work.</p>
<p>The legal question is: Did he do so with “corrupt” intent?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266184/original/file-20190327-139374-rdwqav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Barr’s March 24 letter to Congress.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump-Russia-Probe/fb81cf81c274490e90b6a3d6b162287c/6/0">AP Photo/Jon Elswick</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>2. Release of the report</h2>
<p>That’s among the many things House Democrats hope to learn from reading Mueller’s report. </p>
<p>But they <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-trump-and-barr-could-stretch-claims-of-executive-privilege-and-grand-jury-secrecy-114166">may never see it</a>, writes Charles Tiefer, professor of law at the University of Baltimore. He expects Trump and Barr will do “everything in their power to keep secret the full report and, equally important, the materials underlying the report.”</p>
<p>Tiefer was special deputy chief counsel of the House Iran-contra Investigation in the 1980s and has worked on many major House investigations.</p>
<p>“I saw the tricks the executive branch can pull to withhold evidence,” he says.</p>
<p>The main legal grounds Barr and Trump will try to use for suppressing the Mueller report, according to Tiefer, are executive privilege and grand jury secrecy.</p>
<p>Trump is likely to argue that executive privilege – the principle that the president can withhold certain information from the courts, Congress or others – permits him to keep much of the Mueller report private.</p>
<p>Executive privilege cannot be used to shield evidence of crime. But that’s where Barr’s exoneration of Trump really helps the White House, Tiefer says.</p>
<p>The attorney general, for his part, has already invoked grand jury secrecy – the rule that attorneys, jurors and others “must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury” – to keep Mueller’s report private.</p>
<p>Tiefer suspects Barr will seek to maximize what’s the law by using “the much-deprecated ‘Midas touch’ doctrine,” which could bury “everything indirectly and remotely having some attenuated whiff of a grand jury” as protected information.</p>
<h2>3. Politics versus the law</h2>
<p>In demanding Mueller’s full report, Democrats have asserted that Barr cannot be trusted to interpret its findings objectively because he was appointed by the president. They say that makes his exoneration of Trump a political, rather than legal, determination.</p>
<p>The question of Barr’s independence first arose during his confirmation hearing in February.</p>
<p>Barr, a veteran lawyer who previously served as President George H.W. Bush’s attorney general, interprets the Constitution as giving the president almost unlimited power. He has referred to the attorney general – the government’s top prosecutor – as “the president’s lawyer.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266187/original/file-20190327-139352-s5xr9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Barr was handpicked by Trump to be in office when the Mueller report came in.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Alex Brandon/Jose Luis Magana</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The question of who the attorney general works for <a href="https://theconversation.com/nominating-a-crony-loyalist-or-old-buddy-for-attorney-general-is-a-us-presidential-tradition-108160">dates back centuries</a>, says Austin Sarat, a political scientist at Amherst College. That’s because the position is not mentioned in the Constitution. </p>
<p>“It was created when the First Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789,” Sarat writes.</p>
<p>That law called for the appointment of a person “learned in the law, to act as attorney general for the United States.” It laid out such limited duties for the role that “the attorney general was to be a part-time official” reporting to the president, Sarat says.</p>
<p>As a result, “Throughout American history, there have been different visions of the role of the attorney general and his or her relationship to the president,” he adds.</p>
<h2>4. Loyalty to the president</h2>
<p>Trump expects <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-does-a-president-demand-loyalty-from-people-who-work-for-him-95199">personal loyalty from his staff</a> – including from his attorney general – reports Yu Ouyang, professor of political science at Purdue University Northwest.</p>
<p>The president fired the previous attorney general, Jeff Sessions, in November 2017, reportedly because Sessions’ recused himself from overseeing the FBI’s probe into Russian meddling – a betrayal that opened the door for Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. That’s how Barr got the attorney general job.</p>
<p>Ouyang, who studies loyalty and politics, says presidents it’s normal for presidents to prefer loyalists.</p>
<p>“Loyalty comes in handy for presidents when they enter office and ask, ‘How do I select the people who will help carry out my agenda?’”</p>
<p>What sets Trump apart, for Ouyang, is his “exceptional emphasis on loyalty.” He values it over other critical qualities like competence and honesty. And he appoints his staff accordingly.</p>
<p>That, say Democratic lawmakers, is why Barr cannot be the only public official to see the evidence Mueller collected on Trump.</p>
<p><em>This article is a round-up of stories from The Conversation’s archive.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114398/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
As the special counsel’s investigation of Trump turns into a partisan battle in Congress, here are four key issues to follow.Catesby Holmes, International Editor | Politics Editor, The Conversation USLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1142702019-03-26T22:15:43Z2019-03-26T22:15:43ZTrump and obstruction of justice: An explainer<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265951/original/file-20190326-36260-1906ubr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Special counsel Robert Mueller reached no definitive conclusion about whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice in firing FBI Director James Comey or attacking his own investigation.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Hyungwon Kang, AP Photo/Susan Walsh, Reuters/Jonathan Ernst, Twitter</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. </p>
<p>But Mueller, who <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/us/politics/mueller-report.html">submitted his report to the Department of Justice</a> on March 22 after nearly two years of investigation, did not determine whether the president had obstructed justice during the FBI’s investigation into his campaign. </p>
<p>“While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html#g-page-3">the special counsel stated</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-summary.html">Mueller’s report</a> has not been made public, but Attorney General William Barr does not share Mueller’s uncertainty about an obstruction charge. In a March 24 <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html?module=inline">letter to Congress summarizing Mueller’s findings</a>, Barr said he saw insufficient evidence to establish that the president had obstructed justice.</p>
<p>Democrats want to make their own determination about the evidence. They are now <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democratic-chairmen-call-barr-submit-mueller-report-congress-april-2-n987241">demanding</a> that Barr’s office release Mueller’s report by April 2.</p>
<p>Truthfully, obstruction of justice is a complicated matter. As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=UN4KCIEAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">law professor and one-time elected official</a>, here’s my explanation of the crime – and its possible application to the president.</p>
<h2>What is obstruction of justice?</h2>
<p>According to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505">federal law</a>, obstruction occurs when a person tries to impede or influence a trial, investigation or other official proceeding with threats or corrupt intent. </p>
<p>Bribing a judge and destroying evidence are classic examples of this crime. </p>
<p>Other actions may constitute obstruction, too, depending on the context. And some actions that look like obstruction of justice may not be, because the law requires an intention to obstruct as well. </p>
<p>President Trump did many things to influence investigations into him and his aides – but did he do so with “corrupt” intent?</p>
<p>After the FBI’s investigation of Russian election interference revealed that national security adviser Michael Flynn had lied, for example, Trump <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html">allegedly told FBI director James Comey</a>, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” </p>
<p>Flynn ultimately <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/01/politics/michael-flynn-charged/index.html">pleaded guilty</a> of lying to the FBI about his conversation with Russia’s ambassador – an obstruction of justice crime – and is <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/michael-flynn-sentencing.html">awaiting sentencing</a>.</p>
<p>Soon after, Trump <a href="https://www.cnn.com/specials/politics/james-comey-firing">fired Comey</a>, who was overseeing the FBI’s Russia probe.</p>
<h2>How to determine criminal intent</h2>
<p>That behavior may <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/26/mueller-trump-obstruction-of-justice-russia-216532">constitute obstruction of justice</a>, but only if Trump pressured and later fired Comey for “<a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/was-firing-james-comey-obstruction-justice">corrupt</a>” – meaning willfully improper – reasons. </p>
<p>Determining intent in an obstruction of justice case is often quite challenging for prosecutors, and it requires subjective judgment.</p>
<p>If Trump fired Comey in an effort to prevent the FBI from discovering incriminating information about him or his campaign, that would be “corrupt.”</p>
<p>Alternatively, Trump may have <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/985504808646971392">distrusted</a> Comey because he thought he handled the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton poorly, and consequently fired him. That would be his right as head of the executive branch of government.</p>
<p>The president has offered <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-trump-s-statements-linking-russia-1494682462-htmlstory.html">both explanations</a> for <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/02/andrew-mccabe-fbi-book-excerpt-the-threat/582748/">dismissing Comey</a>. </p>
<p>In a May 2017 interview with NBC News, the president <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia/trump-seeks-to-backtrack-on-2017-comments-on-comey-firing-idUSKCN1LF19Q">said</a>, “Regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey” because of “this Russia thing.” </p>
<p>A few minutes later he <a href="https://www.apnews.com/db90fe2d11b0499b87cc0e5c22e52251">said</a> he fired Comey because “he’s the wrong man for that position.”</p>
<p>The objective of Trump’s statement to Comey about “letting Flynn go” is similarly ambiguous. </p>
<p>If the president was merely stating his hope that Flynn would escape the investigation unscathed, it would not constitute obstruction. But if this was Trump’s way of ordering Comey to clear Flynn, it would.</p>
<h2>Other evidence of obstruction</h2>
<p>Sometimes a single action or statement, standing alone, does not constitute obstruction of justice. But, when taken together with other actions, it creates a pattern of behavior that demonstrates corrupt intent.</p>
<p>For example, Trump <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/19/us/politics/trump-attacks-obstruction-investigation.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer">publicly attacked</a> Mueller, his investigation and other federal investigations into his campaign more than 1,100 times between March 2018 and Feb. 14, 2019, according to The New York Times. </p>
<p>Trump has the constitutional right to mount a “<a href="https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/11/10/why-do-defendants-always-mount-a-vigorous-defense/">vigorous defense</a>” to potential criminal charges and, under the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment">First Amendment</a>, to voice his opinions.</p>
<p>But the president’s behavior toward Comey looks more damning when viewed alongside his efforts to discredit the special counsel’s work. </p>
<h2>Obstruction can occur even without collusion</h2>
<p>Because it can be so difficult to discern a person’s intent, prosecutors often charge obstruction combined with other related charges. </p>
<p>In 1974, when the House of Representatives filed charges against <a href="http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment">President Richard Nixon</a> as part of the impeachment process, it accused him of obstructive conduct that also violated other laws, including his authorizing <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/050174-2.htm">payments to buy the silence of potential witnesses</a> – bribery.</p>
<p>Nixon resigned and was given a <a href="https://www.vox.com/2014/8/7/5970967/what-was-watergate-scandal-nixon">presidential pardon for these crimes</a>.</p>
<p>Similarly, in 1998, when the House of Representatives impeached <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articles122098.htm?noredirect=on">President Bill Clinton</a> on obstruction charges, it also charged him with perjury. He was acquitted on both counts.</p>
<p>While other charges are common in obstruction cases, they are not required. A person can be guilty of obstruction even when they are not trying to cover up their other misconduct.</p>
<p>This is important in Trump’s case because, in Barr’s view, if the president did not collude with Russia – as Mueller concluded – then there was nothing to obstruct.</p>
<p>“The evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” Barr <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html">wrote</a> to Congress, “and … the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction.”</p>
<p>Legally, however, obstruction can still occur even in the absence of an underlying crime. President Trump might have interfered in the FBI and special counsel investigations not to protect himself from collusion charges but to protect members of his family or inner circle. </p>
<p>Ultimately, seven Trump operatives were <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/breakdown-indictments-cases-muellers-probe/story?id=61219489">indicted during Mueller’s investigation</a>. </p>
<h2>What happens next?</h2>
<p>If Congress receives the full Mueller report, lawmakers will assess all evidence gathered during the 22-month special counsel investigation and together with their own investigation, make a determination about whether Trump obstructed justice.</p>
<p>They may agree with Barr that Trump did not intend to obstruct justice. But if there is a strong case that he committed that crime, Trump likely won’t face charges while in office because Department of Justice <a href="https://www.justice.gov/file/19351/download">guidelines</a> state that sitting presidents should not be prosecuted. </p>
<p>If obstruction charges are merited, therefore, Congress would have to raise them during an impeachment proceeding – a process House Speaker Nancy Pelosi so far <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/03/11/feature/nancy-pelosi-on-impeaching-president-trump-hes-just-not-worth-it/">opposes</a>.</p>
<p>Alternatively, Trump could be charged with obstruction after he leaves office.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114270/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Between 2002 and 2008, David Orentlicher served in the Indiana House of Representatives. He ran for Congress in 2015 as a Democrat.</span></em></p>Legally, a person can obstruct justice even if he committed no other crime – though it is harder to prove. It all depends on the intent behind pressuring investigators, say, or firing an FBI director.David Orentlicher, Professor of Law and Co-Director, Health Law Program, University of Nevada, Las VegasLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1141662019-03-25T03:37:11Z2019-03-25T03:37:11ZHow Trump and Barr could stretch claims of executive privilege and grand jury secrecy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265488/original/file-20190325-36270-wll63w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Attorney General William P. Barr, appointed by Donald Trump, has provided Congress with only a summary of Mueller's report.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/Search?query=barr+trump+nomination&ss=10&st=kw&entitysearch=&toItem=18&orderBy=Newest&searchMediaType=allmedia">AP Photo/Alex Brandon/Jose Luis Magana</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-attorney-general-barr-s-principal-conclusions-of-the-mueller-report/?noteId=9048a12b-2332-4645-a1be-d645db216eb5&questionId=218b8095-c5e3-4eab-9135-4170f5b3e87f&utm_term=.3eaad741bdb1">Attorney General William Barr’s letter</a> to Congress, delivered Sunday, purports to brief lawmakers about the Mueller report.</p>
<p>What it really does is set the stage for a battle royale with Trump and Barr doing everything in their power to keep secret the full report and, equally important, the materials underlying the report. They’re likely to fight Democrats in Congress, if not both parties, over the materials’ release. And while they’ll probably cite a range of reasons for their objections to revealing the report, they also share an expansive view of a president’s right to keep his discussions secret.</p>
<p>The public and Congress are unable to judge whether Barr’s conclusions are justified because Barr’s letter is mostly silent about the underlying Mueller report conclusions and evidence. This would be remedied in time if Barr were required to provide the full report and its supporting witness and documentary evidence. </p>
<p>But Trump and Barr each have tools to minimize the access of House investigations to the report and evidence. Despite the end of Mueller’s probe, those investigations continue: Democrat Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, made it clear on Sunday <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/trump-impeachment-democrats.html">that he plans to “move forward” with his committee’s investigations</a>, “into obstruction of justice, abuses of power, corruption, to defend the rule of law, which is our job.” </p>
<p>The key grounds for Barr and Trump to justify withholding of evidence are <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6">grand jury secrecy</a> and <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/primer-executive-privilege-and-executive-branch-approach-congressional-oversight">executive privilege</a>. </p>
<h2>It’s been done before</h2>
<p>To be sure, these grounds for withholding, properly and narrowly applied, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/file/23246/download">have support in precedent</a>.</p>
<p>But I believe that Trump and Barr can be counted on to use every means available to overstate and exaggerate the degree to which these doctrines justify withholding this information from justifiable, duly-authorized House investigations. </p>
<p>I was <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/07-11-17%20Tiefer%20Testimony.pdf">special deputy chief counsel of the House Iran-contra Investigation</a> and <a href="https://ogc.house.gov/about/prior-general-counsels">acting general counsel of the House of Representatives</a> working with many major House investigations. I saw the tricks the executive branch can pull to withhold evidence. </p>
<p>And I saw the potential for the extreme extent that Trump and Barr could go to keep important materials secret.</p>
<p>Mueller’s investigation included presenting evidence to a grand jury. So let us start with the rule that attorneys, jurors and others “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6">must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury</a>” – a rule that could be used to keep much of the Mueller report secret.</p>
<p>In its precise form, this covers “proceedings” of the grand jury. These “proceedings” are occasions when the jurors themselves meet and hear evidence in an investigation. Typically, in investigations of a president or those around him, “proceedings” encompass only a small fraction of the overall body of witnesses and documents. </p>
<p>Voluntary witnesses can be interviewed by the FBI and prosecutors, without the unnecessary trappings of the grand jury. Such witnesses need only attend “proceedings” to the very limited extent that the jurors themselves need to hear them in person to vote an indictment.</p>
<p>Similarly, <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45456">the documents accumulated in an investigation</a> are only to a very limited extent brought to the grand jurors themselves, as needed for indictment. Over 90 percent of the time, interview memos by the FBI and prosecutors, not grand jury transcripts and specific grand jury exhibits, record the witness and documentary information.</p>
<h2>Defining a ‘proceeding’</h2>
<p>But Barr can be expected to wield the much-deprecated <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/08-05-15%20Brian%20Testimony.pdf">“Midas touch” doctrine</a>.<br>
Like King Midas’ touch that turned everything into gold, the “Midas touch” doctrine turns everything indirectly and remotely having some attenuated whiff of a grand jury into walled-up “proceedings” of the grand jury. </p>
<p>For example, take the former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who <a href="https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/dec/05/detailing-michael-flynns-turn-trump-mueller/">cooperated with Mueller’s investigation</a>.</p>
<p>Mueller surely has full FBI and prosecutors’ materials and interviews regarding what Flynn said about <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/us/politics/michael-flynn-russia-sanctions-ripped-up-whistleblower.html">Trump’s opposition to sanctions for Russia</a>. Yet Barr’s letter says nothing of this, even though the actual Mueller report may include a full accounting of it. </p>
<p>Here’s what could then happen if Flynn even once spoke to a grand jury: Using the “Midas touch” doctrine, Barr – if he provides a version of the Mueller report to the public – could keep all of the evidence secret that Flynn provided to law enforcement. </p>
<p>And the public would not even know if this material was expunged.</p>
<h2>What Trump can do</h2>
<p>Executive privilege is the principle that the <a href="https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11527747">president can withhold specific kinds of information from the courts, Congress or others</a>. It similarly provides a potent tool for Trump to withhold much of the Mueller report. </p>
<p>Executive privilege cannot be used to shield evidence of crime. Since Barr wrote in his letter that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-summary.html">Mueller would not exonerate Trump for obstruction</a> of justice, which is a crime, I believe executive privilege should not be used to shield Trump’s communications that relate to obstruction. </p>
<p>In its narrow form, <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/primer-executive-privilege-and-executive-branch-approach-congressional-oversight">executive privilege only applies to communications with the president and those who serve him as advisers</a>. </p>
<p>So even if Trump has left an evidentiary trail a mile wide showing his intent to snuff out the Mueller inquiry, I expect Trump will claim that is all behind a wall of executive privilege. </p>
<p>And, in the broadest interpretation, executive privilege could supposedly stretch far beyond the president’s own communications, down to lowly assistants and factotums who know about <a href="https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=jcl">“pre-decisional deliberations”</a> at any level, high or low. </p>
<p>In this interpretation, if there are intelligence agency deputies who contributed to the conclusion, contrary to the president, of the Russian threat, those deputies and their reports are all “pre-decisional deliberations” shielded by executive privilege.</p>
<p>Will the House of Representatives fight against Trump and Barr’s claims of privilege? </p>
<p>Of course. The Framers called the House the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1974/01/21/archives/grand-inquest-of-the-nation-abroad-at-home.html">“Grand Inquest” of the nation</a> for a reason.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114166/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Tiefer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The president and attorney general can try to keep the findings of Mueller’s investigation secret. They’ll likely use both the secrecy of grand jury proceedings and executive privilege to do that.Charles Tiefer, Professor of law, University of BaltimoreLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1078552018-11-29T11:37:09Z2018-11-29T11:37:09ZWill Trump pardon Manafort?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247823/original/file-20181128-32191-1lf2r6z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Donald Trump and Paul Manafort in 2016.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Paul-Manafort-Sent-to-Jail/f5f1326e41154850a7a922e864980542/3/0">Mark Reinstein/MediaPunch /IPX</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, may be hoping for a presidential pardon.</p>
<p>In September, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/14/politics/paul-manafort-guilty-plea/index.html">Manafort pleaded guilty</a> to conspiracy to obstruct justice and conspiracy against the U.S. He also agreed to cooperate with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. However, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/us/politics/mueller-paul-manafort-cooperation.html">Mueller recently filed papers</a> in the federal district court for the District of Columbia alleging that Manafort had violated his cooperation agreement by repeatedly lying to the FBI and to Mueller’s investigators.</p>
<p>In addition, one of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/manafort-lawyer-trump-cooperation.html">Manafort’s lawyers has been repeatedly briefing</a> President Trump’s lawyers about his client’s discussions with the special counsel’s team. </p>
<p>Manafort may have been trying to please two masters in this period by both claiming to cooperate with Mueller, yet at the same time providing Trump with back-channel information about Mueller’s investigation that would benefit him. As a legal scholar, this incident raises a crucial question: Was this Manafort’s play for a pardon? </p>
<p>My <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8018.html">research on clemency</a> shows how chief executives have used this power, in particular the power to pardon, to halt criminal prosecutions, sometimes even before they begin. </p>
<h2>‘For any reason at all’</h2>
<p>The pardoning power, as Founding Father Alexander Hamilton <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp">explained</a>, is very broad, applying even to cases of treason against the United States. As <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed74.asp">Hamilton put it</a>, “The benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed.”</p>
<p>Throughout our history, courts have taken a similarly expansive view. In 1977, Florida’s State Supreme Court <a href="http://campuspress.yale.edu/capitalpunishment/files/2014/12/Class-13-Part-2-Clemency-Execution-w0pt0n.pdf">said that</a> “an executive may grant a pardon for good reasons or bad, or for any reason at all, and his act is final and irrevocable.”</p>
<p>In 1837, the <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/71/333.html">United States Supreme Court held</a> that the president’s pardon power “extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pendency">pendency</a>, or after conviction and judgment.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178923/original/file-20170719-13558-alwfl8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178923/original/file-20170719-13558-alwfl8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178923/original/file-20170719-13558-alwfl8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178923/original/file-20170719-13558-alwfl8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178923/original/file-20170719-13558-alwfl8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178923/original/file-20170719-13558-alwfl8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178923/original/file-20170719-13558-alwfl8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178923/original/file-20170719-13558-alwfl8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Gerald Ford on Sept. 8, 1974 grants former President Richard Nixon ‘a full, free and absolute pardon.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yet <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/07/preemptive_presidential_pardons.html">prospective pardons</a> are quite rare. The most famous prospective pardon in American history was granted by President Gerald Ford in September 1974. He <a href="https://www.archivesfoundation.org/documents/richard-nixon-resignation-letter-gerald-ford-pardon/">pardoned former President Richard Nixon</a> after he was forced to resign in the face of the Watergate scandal. Ford pardoned Nixon for “all offenses against the United States which he … has committed or may have committed or taken part in” between the date of his inauguration in 1969 and his resignation. </p>
<p>In other cases, presidents have halted criminal proceedings immediately after they began. President <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/1992-12-25/news/mn-2472_1_iran-contra-affair">George H.W. Bush</a> pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger just after Weinberger had been indicted for lying to Congress about the sale of arms to Iran by the Reagan administration.</p>
<p>Those pardons evoked public outcry against what was perceived to be an arrogant interference with the legal process. Ford’s action may have contributed to his defeat in the 1976 presidential election against Jimmy Carter. And Bush’s pardon of Weinberger prompted accusations that he was engaging in a cover-up. Critics said that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-pardon.html">his action demonstrated</a> that “powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious crimes in high office – deliberately abusing the public trust without consequence.”</p>
<h2>Rule of law</h2>
<p>Given such controversies about pardons and the the fear of being labeled soft on crime, presidents until recently have been <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/20/obama-used-more-clemency-power/">increasingly reticent</a> about using their clemency power before or after conviction. Thus, while President Nixon granted clemency to more than 36 percent of those who sought it during his eight years in office, the comparable number for George W. Bush was 2 percent. President Obama <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/20/obama-used-more-clemency-power/">reversed that trend</a>, granting more pardons and commutations than anyone since Harry Truman. </p>
<p><iframe id="8qQOl" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/8qQOl/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>And President Trump, despite his commitment to being a <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/09/donald-trump-criminal-justice/93550162/">law-and-order president</a>, already has demonstrated his fondness for the <a href="https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardons-granted-president-donald-trump">pardon power</a>.</p>
<p>In July 2017 Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/top-democrat-house-intel-committee-latest-russia-investigation-48665268">predicted a negative public reaction</a> if Trump granted pardons in the context of the Mueller investigation. He said: “The impressions the country, certainly, would get from that is the president was trying to shield people from liability for telling the truth about what happened in the Russia investigation or Russian contacts.”</p>
<p>With the prospect of a pardon for Manafort in the news, Rep. Jerry Nadler, the incoming Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/27/politics/jerry-nadler-trump-dangling-pardon-manafort-obstruction-of-justice-cnntv/index.html">reiterated Schiff’s warning</a>. As he put it, “The President should understand that even dangling a pardon in front of a witness like Manafort is dangerously close to obstruction of justice and would just fortify a claim or a charge of obstruction of justice against the President.”</p>
<p>Trump is seldom dissuaded from his preferred course of action by such warnings and threats. He seems confident that Senate Republicans will provide a firewall against conviction on any impeachment charges. In this context, the prospect of sparing his former campaign chairman any more jail time could provide a plausible cover for “buying” Manafort’s silence with a pardon.</p>
<p>Pardoning Manafort would not only hamper the Russia investigations, it would also deliver another serious blow to <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-trumps-definition-of-the-rule-of-law-the-same-as-the-us-constitutions-77598">American democracy and the rule of law</a>.</p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of an article originally published on July 19, 2017.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/107855/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Austin Sarat does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Presidents past have used a nearly limitless power of pardon to halt criminal prosecutions before. What’s to stop Trump?Austin Sarat, Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science, Amherst CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1066142018-11-09T11:44:24Z2018-11-09T11:44:24Z3 things Jeff Sessions did as attorney general that history should remember<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244667/original/file-20181108-74754-1dyzkyn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mike Pence administers the oath of office to Attorney General Jeff Sessions.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump-100-100-Photos/790340e9197445da8dcc8393b47e89fd/1/0">AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>President Donald Trump’s sacking of Attorney General Jeff Sessions has raised concerns among those who wish to see the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller continue unimpeded.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1060256623439110146"}"></div></p>
<p>Those same people will likely not lament Session’s ouster based on what he accomplished as attorney general. In my view, his tenure as attorney general saw him on the wrong side of most important law enforcement decisions. On the other hand, many will point to him as a historic champion for “law and order” conservatism at the highest level. </p>
<p>Here are three areas where Sessions will most be remembered. </p>
<h2>1. Controversial from the start</h2>
<p>Sessions’ tenure began back in early 2017. During his <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/politics/jeff-sessions-russia-trump-investigation-democrats.html">confirmation hearings</a>, Sessions testified incorrectly under oath that he had had no contacts with Russian officials during his active role in the 2016 Trump campaign. When it became public that he had met with the Russian ambassador, <a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/did-sessions-lie/">he claimed he had not lied</a>. But because of those contacts and his role in the campaign, he recused himself from the Russia investigation.</p>
<p>This caused a rift between him and President Trump, which was ironic, given that Sessions enthusiastically implemented most of Trump’s policy priorities. In the end, the perceived lack of personal loyalty from the recusal – the necessity of which seemed pretty straightforward to most outside legal observers – proved to be Sessions’ downfall. </p>
<h2>2. Crackdown on drugs</h2>
<p>Sessions enthusiastically waged the war on drugs, much to the chagrin of those who considered that war a proven failure. </p>
<p>Sessions <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-issues-sweeping-new-criminal-charging-policy/2017/05/11/4752bd42-3697-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e4d64261fdc7">instructed prosecutors</a> to seek the maximum possible sentences for drug offenses and in 2017 <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-prisons-idUSKBN1622NN">reversed an Obama-era Department of Justice policy</a> that barred the Department of Justice from contracting with private prisons.</p>
<p>He also reversed the Obama-era policy against federal enforcement of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-is-rescinding-obama-era-directive-for-feds-to-back-off-marijuana-enforcement-in-states-with-legal-pot/2018/01/04/b1a42746-f157-11e7-b3bf-ab90a706e175_story.html?utm_term=.f2e0b306ebf5">marijuana possession laws</a> in states where marijuana had been decriminalized. This meant low-level drug offenders were subjected to serious federal criminal penalties for dealing a substance made legal under state law. This position highlighted a tension between the dueling conservative principles of being “tough on crime” while also respecting states’ rights.</p>
<p>Sessions’ criminal justice policies would put many more people in jail, exacerbating the perceived problem of <a href="https://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/dec/15/jim-webb/webb-says-us-has-5-percent-worlds-population-25-pe/">mass incarceration</a>. America is responsible for 25 percent of the world’s imprisoned persons despite having only 5 percent of the world’s population. As attorney general, Sessions embraced the policies seen by many as major causes of this problem, including harsh mandatory minimum sentences; the use of private prisons which create a for-profit incentive to incarcerate; and imprisoning persons who commit low-level, nonviolent drug offenses. </p>
<p>Sessions and his supporters argued that illegal drugs are a scourge, and that swift and certain punishment was the best means of combating it. This included a Sessions-led crackdown on <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/us/politics/opioids-crackdown-sessions.html">doctors, drug dealers and traffickers</a> whose distribution of drugs through either legal or illegal means fed the nation’s opioid epidemic, one of the signal Sessions efforts which garnered the most bipartisan support. </p>
<h2>3. ‘Zero tolerance’ at the border</h2>
<p>On immigration, Sessions faithfully put into action the tough talk of the president – even where, some would say, supporting evidence was lacking. </p>
<p>Research shows that immigrants commit fewer crimes in the U.S. <a href="https://theconversation.com/immigration-and-crime-what-does-the-research-say-72176">than non-immigrants</a>.</p>
<p>But Sessions often falsely claimed that there was a strong correlation between immigration – including legal immigration – and crime, including terrorism. He pointed out that members of the notorious <a href="https://theconversation.com/central-american-gangs-like-ms-13-were-born-out-of-failed-anti-crime-policies-76554">MS-13 gang</a> came to the U.S. from other countries – although, ironically, the gang got its start here in the U.S. </p>
<p>Sessions used the false connection between immigrants and crime for sharp reductions in the number of <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/01/syria-refugee-crisis-congress-hearing/73164432/">Syrian refugees the U.S. should admit</a>, despite the fact that it is IS terrorists that they themselves are fleeing. He also used it to justify a crusade against so-called “sanctuary cities,” cities which forbade local law enforcement officials from enforcing certain federal immigration laws. </p>
<p>As sanctuary city advocates observe, such enforcement might make local immigrant communities less likely to report crimes, serve as witnesses, and otherwise cooperate with local law enforcement to reduce ordinary crime. Sessions’ January 2017 executive order to suspend all federal funding to such cities was eventually <a href="https://www.npr.org/2017/05/22/529560837/justice-department-narrows-scope-of-sanctuary-cities-executive-order">blocked by the courts</a> as unconstitutional overreach.</p>
<p>But the most prominent and devastating aspect of his immigration policy was creating a “zero tolerance” policy at the border – the idea that every undocumented person coming to the border without documentation would be detained and criminally prosecuted, even those pursuing valid and legal asylum claims.</p>
<p>The policy triggered the widely criticized practice of <a href="http://time.com/5268572/jeff-sessions-illegal-border-separated/">family separation</a>, in which federal agents separated <a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/6/19/17479138/how-many-families-separated-border-immigration">thousands of children</a> from their parents. Parents <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/21/politics/jeff-sessions-immigration-family-separation/index.html">accused of no crime</a> went months without seeing their young children, talking to them or even knowing where they were. The <a href="https://psmag.com/news/trump-officials-claim-to-be-unaware-of-the-psychological-trauma-of-family-separation">trauma produced lasting effects</a> on many of the younger, more vulnerable children. Many remain separated.</p>
<p>At the same time, the get-tough-on-immigration approach shared by Sessions and Trump resonated with many Americans, especially Republicans. Trump <a href="https://theconversation.com/republican-ads-feature-ms-13-hoping-fear-will-motivate-voters-105474">leaned on it</a> heavily to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-21/trump-gambles-with-immigration-attack-to-energize-midterm-voters">mobilize his base</a> in the run-up to the midterm elections. </p>
<p>Sessions effectively pursued the conservative goals he had long championed and which his boss favored.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106614/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Mulroy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>He was a champion for ‘law and order’ policies at the highest level.Steven Mulroy, Law Professor in Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Election Law, University of MemphisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1020242018-08-23T16:26:57Z2018-08-23T16:26:57ZThere’s a dark history to the campaign finance laws Michael Cohen broke — and that should worry Trump<p>Politics usually takes a summer vacation in August. But not during the Trump administration. </p>
<p>On Aug. 21, Michael Cohen, who until recently was President Trump’s long-time personal lawyer, surrendered to federal prosecutors in Manhattan after months of <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax">investigation into tax evasion</a> and other crimes dating back to 2011. </p>
<p>Cohen <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4779489-Cohen-Information.html#document/p1">pleaded guilty</a> to violating a variety of laws, including two United States campaign finance laws: a ban on corporate contributions to candidates for federal office and the limit on individual campaign contributions. </p>
<p>The charges could land Cohen up to 65 years in jail, but his deal with prosecutors is likely to knock his sentence down to about five years. It may also have serious repercussions for President Donald Trump. </p>
<h2>No corporate gifts</h2>
<p>The United States government first began regulating money in elections in 1907 with the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30118">Tillman Act</a>, which today still bars corporations from donating to political candidates. </p>
<p>Cohen broke that law when he, according to the <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-michael-cohen-plea-agreement">criminal information</a> filed in court, “caused” American Media Inc. – owner of the tabloid National Inquirer – to pay former Playboy playmate Karen McDougal US$150,000 to stay quiet about her alleged affair with Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential race. </p>
<p>American Media Inc. also likely violated the Tillman Act with this payment, but prosecutors have not yet indicted individuals there. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233284/original/file-20180823-149493-2medwj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Trump lawyer Michael Cohen surrendered to the FBI on Aug. 21, 2018.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Kevin Hagen</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Tillman Act was inspired by <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1474421">a 1904 election scandal</a> in which New York insurance companies secretly gave their policy holders’ money to the Republican Party to help Theodore Roosevelt get elected president.</p>
<p>After the news broke that illicit funds had helped finance his campaign, Roosevelt – by then the sitting president – <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1905-pt1-v39/content-detail.html">addressed Congress</a>, decrying the dangers of corporate money in American democracy. </p>
<p>Calling for “vigorous measures,” Roosevelt said the nation must “protect the integrity of the elections of its own officials” because there was “no enemy of free government more dangerous and none so insidious” as corporate financing. </p>
<p>Congress eventually agreed with him. For the past century, the Tillman Act has banned corporations from influencing elections by directly donating to federal candidates like Donald Trump.</p>
<h2>Stormy Daniels and the $2,700 spending cap</h2>
<p>The second campaign finance law Cohen violated, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30116">the individual contribution limit</a>, also emerged from political scandal – a pattern I’ve observed in my years <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=584767">studying U.S. campaign finance law</a>. </p>
<p>Since 1974 the United States has capped the amount a person can contribute to a presidential candidate in a single campaign. </p>
<p>When Cohen gave $130,000 to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels in October 2016 in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair with Trump, he exceeded the current $2,700 limit. </p>
<p>The money, which Cohen got from a fraudulently obtained home equity line of credit – a separate crime – is considered a campaign contribution because, as Cohen <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-cohen-guilty-plea-says-payoffs-were-meant-to-influence-2016-election-in-court-today-2018-08-21/">recently told a federal judge in New York</a>, it was paid “for the principle purpose of influencing the election.” </p>
<p>The individual contribution limit traces back to Watergate. </p>
<p>President Richard Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President – the campaign committee known as “CREEP” – <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2046832">used its money to pay</a> the Republican operatives who broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate Building in Washington, D.C. during the 1972 presidential race. </p>
<p>CREEP had both illegal and legal campaign funds in its coffers. The illegal moneys included sizable gifts from donors who wanted Nixon to appoint them to coveted foreign ambassadorships, a practice known to both Republican and Democratic presidents. </p>
<p>The legal contributions to Nixon’s campaign included large contributions from wealthy donors who wanted to wield other forms of influence in the White House. </p>
<p>At the president’s instruction, his aides and friends <a href="https://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/11/10/7382/nixon-grand-jury-100000-cash-contributions-and-rewarding-donors-ambassadorships">solicited secret $100,000 donations</a> from such leaders of industry as billionaire Howard Hughes and agribusiness titan Dwayne Andreas. Sometimes the money was “contributed” to Nixon’s campaign in envelopes of cash delivered to the Oval Office.</p>
<p>After Watergate exposed these campaign practices, the public responded with revulsion. <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1593253">One out of every four letters sent to Congress</a> was from Americans demanding stronger rules governing money in politics. The response was the 1974 <a href="http://www.cfinst.org/law/federal.aspx">Federal Election Campaign Act</a>. </p>
<p>This bipartisan reform created the Federal Election Commission, which enforces campaign finance laws, and required federal candidates, political action committees, parties and independent political spenders to disclose their political spending. It also limited maximum individual campaign contributions to $1,000. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act">2002 bipartisan reform</a> of the act raised that amount to $2,000. In 2016 the contribution cap increased to $2,700 to account for inflation.</p>
<h2>What Cohen’s crimes mean for Trump</h2>
<p>Despite President Trump and his legal team’s claims to the contrary, <a href="https://billmoyers.com/story/violating-certain-campaign-finance-laws-criminal-offenses/">these two campaign finance violations are crimes</a>. </p>
<p>When he pleaded guilty, Cohen also <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/21/michael-cohen-testified-under-oath-that-donald-trump-directed-him-to-commit-a-crime-lawyer-says.html">testified under oath</a> that he committed the felonies “in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal office.”</p>
<p>If true, these admissions mean President Trump took part in Cohen’s crimes. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233285/original/file-20180823-149493-tdmb52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Based on Cohen’s testimony, Trump may be what’s called an ‘unindicted co-conspirator’ in his lawyer’s crimes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Elizabeth Williams via AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So far, this is not new territory for the country. President Nixon was also found to be what’s called an “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1974/06/07/archives/jury-named-nixon-a-coconspirator-but-didnt-indict-st-clair-confirms.html">unindicted co-conspirator</a>” in the Watergate cover-up, meaning he committed crimes but was not charged for them. </p>
<p>Nixon resigned from office <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/05/29/richard-nixon-was-not-impeached-despite-what-hillary-clinton-and-others-say/?utm_term=.892d0da94f19">before Congress could formally impeach him</a>. He was <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4696">pardoned by President Gerald Ford</a>, so the Department of Justice never had to face the constitutional crisis of prosecuting a sitting president.</p>
<p>Both Trump and White House officials have <a href="https://www.axios.com/sarah-sanders-trump-cohen-manafort-daniels-payment-d85ebe25-8670-4102-874e-e9d3f7524021.html">repeatedly denied</a> responsibility for Cohen’s criminal acts. This leaves Special Counsel Robert Mueller and <a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/4/18/17252554/trump-cohen-new-york-state-laws">other prosecutors</a> in a quandary about how to proceed with these campaign finance violations. </p>
<p>Like Nixon, the president of the United States may now be an unindicted co-conspirator in felonies committed by his lawyer. But, so far, Trump shows no signs of resigning.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/102024/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ciara C Torres-Spelliscy has received funding from Public Citizen. She is affiliated with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. </span></em></p>Trump’s former personal lawyer broke two laws that control political spending, both passed after major election scandals. President Roosevelt survived his campaign’s misdeeds. Nixon did not.Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Leroy Highbaugh Sr. Research Chair and Professor of Law, Stetson University Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1008012018-08-23T10:41:56Z2018-08-23T10:41:56ZToday’s GOP leaders have little in common with those who resisted Nixon<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233179/original/file-20180822-149484-1o7uteq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Atty. Gen. Elliot Richardson swears in William D. Ruckelshaus as his deputy. Both men later resigned rather than carry out Nixon's order to fire the Watergate special prosecutor.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP/John Duricka</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Republican leaders in 2018 are profoundly different than the ones who dealt with Watergate in the 1970s. </p>
<p>During Watergate, a significant number of GOP members of Congress and the Nixon administration publicly resisted President Richard Nixon’s efforts to undermine the rule of law. </p>
<p>Today’s GOP leaders, with few exceptions, meekly follow President Trump. </p>
<p>Republicans in Congress, and even GOP candidates for Congress, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/07/22/631255006/republicans-struggle-to-criticize-trump">have been loathe to criticize the president</a>. Their submissiveness has significant implications.
In my view, some Republicans today are, with the support of the president, openly impeding an ongoing investigation that may or many not implicate Trump. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/conservative-lawmakers-introduce-resolution-calling-for-impeachment-of-rod-rosenstein-who-oversees-special-counsel-probe-on-russia/2018/07/25/fe8ee304-9060-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html?utm_term=.18fb145f5950">Recent attacks from Republicans</a> <a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/6/28/17504514/house-republicans-document-war-rosenstein-nunes-trump-mueller">on Robert Mueller’s investigation</a> into Russian interference in the 2016 election has made that much clear.</p>
<p>That’s in contrast to how some prominent members of the GOP acted during the Watergate crisis that led to President Nixon’s resignation. </p>
<p>Research in my forthcoming book “<a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520299054/they-said-no-to-nixon">They Said No to Nixon</a>” reveals that Republican civil servants serving in President Nixon’s administration blocked his attempts to politicize their work.</p>
<p>Their stories, when contrasted with the actions of Republicans today, show how the GOP has transformed from a party that included moderate civil servants to one that embraces a culture of loyalty now.</p>
<h2>Past isn’t prologue</h2>
<p>The political backdrop today is of growing crisis for President Trump as Mueller’s investigation has spawned indictments of the president’s associates. </p>
<p>Two dozen people, including five in Trump’s circle, have <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/national/robert-mueller-special-counsel-indictments-timeline/?utm_term=.ec2ee5bced53">been charged in Mueller’s investigation</a>. On Tuesday, Trump’s former campaign chairman <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/08/22/640745928/guilty-6-takeaways-from-manaforts-and-cohen-s-big-day">Paul Manafort was convicted of tax evasion and bank fraud on the same day</a> the president’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to eight federal crimes, including campaign finance violations.</p>
<p>Trump feeds the crisis atmosphere with <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-twitter-live-updates-tweets-latest-us-president-meaning-explained-a8310501.html">intemperate tweets and inflammatory statements</a>.</p>
<p>Earlier this month, Trump sent out a <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1024646945640525826?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1024646945640525826&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2018%2F08%2F01%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-russia-jeff-sessions-mueller%2Findex.html">tweet</a> that openly encouraged Attorney General Jeff Sessions to end Mueller’s investigation. </p>
<p>Following the Manafort conviction, the president once again referred to the Mueller investigation as a “<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1032259660378779648">witch hunt</a>” and praised Manafort, calling him a “<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1032256443985084417">brave man</a>” for refusing to “break.” </p>
<p>The president has set the tone for Republicans in Congress who have mostly followed his lead. </p>
<p>Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, has attempted to rally Republicans in Congress to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rod-rosenstein-articles-of-impeachment-introduced-house-republicans-mark-meadows-jim-jordan-2018-07-25/">impeach</a> Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing the Mueller investigation. House Majority Leader Paul Ryan <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/26/ryan-rejects-conservative-push-to-impeach-rosenstein-743487">disavowed this effort, though he was still supportive of other measures</a> conservative House members wanted to take that would escalate the conflict with Rosenstein and the Justice Department. </p>
<p>The House Republican attacks on Rosenstein follow those of California Rep. Devin Nunes, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, who has repeatedly tried to find ways to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/09/opinions/finally-nunes-admits-what-charade-is-all-about-zelizer/index.html">limit</a> the scope of the Mueller investigation. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233182/original/file-20180822-149484-1if4t6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233182/original/file-20180822-149484-1if4t6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233182/original/file-20180822-149484-1if4t6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233182/original/file-20180822-149484-1if4t6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233182/original/file-20180822-149484-1if4t6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233182/original/file-20180822-149484-1if4t6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233182/original/file-20180822-149484-1if4t6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, wants to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP/Andrew Harnik</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Moderate Republicans</h2>
<p>Here are three instances when Republicans in both Congress and the Nixon administration stood up to Nixon.</p>
<p><strong>One:</strong> <a href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-resigns">Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency on Aug. 9, 1974</a>, more than two years after five men who worked for the president’s re-election campaign were caught <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/part1.html">breaking into the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate</a> office complex. </p>
<p>Subsequent investigations uncovered evidence that the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/opinion/30krogh.html">White House attempted to cover up their involvement in the break-in</a> in order to hide their broader campaign to spy on their political opponents. That evidence included the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehKRQ0N-dIg">“smoking gun” tape which featured the president discussing with his Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman</a> how they could stop the Watergate investigation. </p>
<p>On Aug. 7, Republican Senators Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott, along with Congressman John Jacob Rhodes, went to the White House and <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2003/aug/26/local/me-rhodes26">told the president that his support in Congress had collapsed</a>. They also told the president that the House would impeach him and that the Senate would convict him. </p>
<p><a href="https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0808.html">Nixon announced his resignation the very next day.</a></p>
<p><strong>Two:</strong> In contrast to the Republican party of 2018, which has largely followed Trump’s brand of conservatism, the GOP of the Nixon era represented a <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rule-and-ruin-9780199768400?cc=us&lang=en&">wider range of views</a>. The Nixon administration and Republicans in Congress included many moderates whose priorities were not always in line with the more conservative White House.</p>
<p>Among the moderates were cabinet members <a href="https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0720.html">Attorney General Elliot Richardson</a> and <a href="https://www.treasury.gov/about/history/pages/gpschultz.aspx">Treasury Secretary George Shultz</a>. </p>
<p>Less than two months before the 1972 presidential election, in which Nixon was running for re-election, IRS Commissioner Johnnie Walters <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_TjWN-Mk4">refused to comply with</a> the White House’s plan to audit hundreds of the president’s enemies. Shultz defied the White House and supported Walters, who worked for him.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-koncewicz-the-little-known-heroes-who-stood-up-to-nixon-20170517-story.html">When Nixon later sent orders to the staff of the Office of Management and Budget to punish universities that permitted large antiwar protests</a>, Shultz defied him again and refused to carry out a plan to cut federal funds to MIT.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233181/original/file-20180822-149493-1kdymna.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233181/original/file-20180822-149493-1kdymna.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233181/original/file-20180822-149493-1kdymna.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233181/original/file-20180822-149493-1kdymna.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233181/original/file-20180822-149493-1kdymna.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233181/original/file-20180822-149493-1kdymna.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233181/original/file-20180822-149493-1kdymna.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Washington Post front page after the Saturday Night Massacre.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Three:</strong> Elliot Richardson, Nixon’s attorney general, <a href="https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1020.html">famously resigned</a> on Oct. 20, 1973, after refusing Nixon’s order to fire the Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Cox was investigating the Watergate burglary and crimes related to it. </p>
<p>In what came to be known as the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/102173-2.htm">“Saturday Night Massacre,”</a> Richardson’s deputy, William Ruckelshaus, a fellow moderate, also resigned in protest. Cox was subsequently fired by the man who became acting attorney general, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/02/us/bork-irked-by-emphasis-on-his-role-in-watergate.html">Robert Bork</a>.</p>
<p>After Cox was fired, Congress was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/26/us/new-views-emerge-of-bork-s-role-in-watergate-dismissals.html">besieged by telegrams</a> calling for Nixon’s impeachment. By the end of the month, a plurality of the <a href="https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=hMofAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wdcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=694,3954202&dq=telegrams&hl=en">American public</a> were in favor of impeachment.</p>
<p>Nixon later wrote in his memoirs of Richardson, a product of the Ivy League establishment, “The first major mistake was the appointment of Richardson as Attorney General.” He added, “Richardson’s weakness, which came to light during the Cox firing, should have been apparent.” </p>
<p>Nixon labeled moderates who resisted his orders as weak and disloyal, similar to how Trump <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/30/17408666/jeff-sessions-trump-attorney-general-twitter-gowdy">has described Attorney General Jeff Sessions</a> and others who disagree with him. </p>
<h2>Commitment to civil service</h2>
<p>I believe that the individuals who said “no” to Nixon placed an emphasis on finding nonpartisan solutions in their work instead of slavishly following their party and its leader.</p>
<p>For example, former IRS Commissioner Johnnie Walters, the Republican who refused to audit Nixon’s “enemies,” <a href="https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/forresearchers/find/histories/Johnnie_Walters.pdf">said in 2008</a>, “By doing the job right, we were protecting our tax system and the tax laws and the taxpayers, and not the Administration.” Like Shultz, Walters’ stand demonstrated that he was someone who was not bound by his political party.</p>
<p>Walters and other administration officials were committed to nonpartisan civil service. Nixon was a politician.</p>
<p>Nixon once said to his outgoing cabinet member John Connally: “I don’t believe that civil service is a good thing for the country.” </p>
<h2>Culture of loyalty</h2>
<p>The actions of Walters, Shultz, Richardson and Ruckelshaus, as well as the Republican congressional leaders who told Nixon he’d lost party support, show that there were GOP officials and leaders who were willing to challenge President Nixon. </p>
<p>Similar to today, each of these Republicans had to overcome the president’s culture of loyalty. Nixon <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/blog/37721/august-9-1974-the-president-resigns/">frequently obsessed</a> over creating what he called a “new establishment” that would move the country in a more conservative direction. Its central component was loyalty to him. </p>
<p>During a meeting where he plotted out his second term, <a href="https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/white-house-tapes">Nixon said</a>: “I’d rather take a dumb loyalist than a bright neuter.”</p>
<p>Soon after the Saturday Night Massacre, Nixon wrote that <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=fnVmDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA114&ots=x68E0JPhcD&dq=%E2%80%9CEstablishment%20types%20like%20Richardson%20simply%20won%E2%80%99t%20stand%20with%20us%20when%20%5Bthe%5D%20chips%20are%20down.%E2%80%9D&pg=PA114#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CEstablishment%20types%20like%20Richardson%20simply%20won%E2%80%99t%20stand%20with%20us%20when%20%5Bthe%5D%20chips%20are%20down.%E2%80%9D&f=false">“establishment types like Richardson simply won’t stand with us when (the) chips are down.” </a></p>
<p>Today’s Republicans are led now by a president who also demands loyalty at every turn. And their actions stand in marked contrast to those who once were faced with similar challenges, and who chose country over loyalty to one man.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100801/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Koncewicz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Republicans in Congress today are different than GOP figures who challenged President Nixon during Watergate. GOP leaders now stand in contrast to those who once chose country over loyalty to one man.Michael Koncewicz, Assistant Research Scholar, New York UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1019732018-08-22T02:48:52Z2018-08-22T02:48:52ZWith Cohen and Manafort both guilty, the pressure on Trump is rising<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233017/original/file-20180822-149493-1242pry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A protestor outside the Virginia courtroom where Paul Manafort was convicted of fraud on Tuesday.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Michael Reynolds/EPA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/nyregion/michael-cohen-plea-deal-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news">guilty pleas</a> by Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/us/politics/paul-manafort-trial-verdict.html">conviction</a> of Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, this week no doubt deepen the US president’s legal problems.</p>
<p>Occurring nearly simultaneously in separate courtrooms, the developments were the most dramatic yet in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-special-counsel-and-what-will-he-investigate-in-the-trump-administration-77952">ongoing investigation</a> into Russian interference in the 2016 US elections.</p>
<p>But do they pose an existential risk to Trump’s presidency? This obviously depends how special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation continues to develop in Washington. But in terms of how damaging Tuesday’s events are for Trump, there are competing schools of thought. </p>
<h2>Things are looking bad for Trump</h2>
<p>The Manafort verdict was the first time Mueller’s investigation has been tested in court. Trump has spent months deriding this “witch-hunt” against him, but even witches get a trial and Manafort largely, though not completely, lost his. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1030940529037651968"}"></div></p>
<p>Manafort was convicted of <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-manafort-jury-trial-verdict-day4-1534861860">eight of the 18 charges</a> he faced relating to tax and bank fraud with his personal finances. Manafort was Trump’s campaign manager in 2016, though his crimes largely predate that three-month tenure. While Manafort’s convictions are not directly related to Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 elections, the impression the Trump campaign was staffed by white-collar criminals is now much stronger.</p>
<p>Manafort <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/19/paul-manaforts-complicated-ties-to-ukraine-explained/?utm_term=.948ee997072f">was also in the pay</a> of a Russian-backed leader in Ukraine, former President Viktor Yanukovych. When Yanukovych was <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraines-yanukovych-missing-as-protesters-take-control-of-presidential-residence-in-kiev/2014/02/22/802f7c6c-9bd2-11e3-ad71-e03637a299c0_story.html?utm_term=.b96f4a248d02">ousted from office</a> in 2014, that source of income dried up, forcing Manafort to find new and nefarious ways to support his lavish lifestyle. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/q-a-why-is-paul-manafort-on-trial-and-what-does-it-mean-for-donald-trump-100399">Q+A: Why is Paul Manafort on trial and what does it mean for Donald Trump?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The problem for Trump is the possible nexus between himself, Manafort and Putin that Manafort’s guilty verdicts could expose. That will likely be tested when the former campaign chair <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/16/app-politics-section/mueller-manafort-evidence-next-trial/index.html">goes on trial in Washington</a> next month for his alleged crimes linked to his Ukraine consultancy.</p>
<p>Cohen’s plea bargain also makes a possible charge against Trump more stickable. Importantly, Cohen has gone further than anyone else in <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/current/jon-ossoff-on-how-to-talk-about-special-elections-and-the-ohio-twelfth">directly implicating</a> Trump as a co-conspirator in some of his actions. If Trump did authorise his former personal lawyer to <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45265546">pay off women</a> with whom he had had extramarital affairs and told him to do so in order not to derail his 2016 presidential campaign, he may be guilty of campaign finance violations, at the very least.</p>
<p>Together, the legal travails of Manafort and Cohen bring the Mueller investigation into the White House. It has so far just been banging on the windows. Trump has been able to skirt the malfeasance of his former advisors through the court of public opinion. The problem is that the United States is a government of laws and of actual courts that <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump">bully-pulpit tweets</a> cannot indefinitely protect him from.</p>
<h2>This won’t hurt Trump that much (at least, not yet)</h2>
<p>Trump has earned a sort of immunity by profusion. He commits so many <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/19/very-aggressive-trump-suggests-montenegro-could-cause-world-war-three">faux pas</a>, is <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-blame-sides-charlottesville-now-anniversary-puts-spot/story?id=57141612">politically incorrect</a> so often, skirts potential legal issues so frequently, that no one transgression ever seems to stick. </p>
<p>Former President Richard Nixon committed one clear crime and <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/watergate-nixon-impeached/">paid the price</a>. But what is Trump actually guilty of? Having dubious business and political associates? What president hasn’t had those? </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-friendly-reminder-impeaching-donald-trump-will-not-remove-him-from-office-94369">A friendly reminder: impeaching Donald Trump will not remove him from office</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Sexual relations with women other than his wife? <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations">Bill Clinton did as much</a> and is regarded as one of the most successful presidents of recent years.</p>
<p>Trump’s supporters also don’t care about any of this. Many see the trials of Manafort and Cohen as the elite going after Trumps’s associates because they can’t land a glove on their hero. </p>
<p>This popular sentiment is a vital currency for the Trump administration. He has thus far <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/24/why-is-trump-so-much-more-popular-with-republicans-than-past-presidents/?utm_term=.ba9392100d8e">remained enormously popular</a> with his base, despite the gathering legal clouds. He is particularly adept at exploiting his victim-in-chief status. The most powerful man in the world is protected in the court of public opinion by his victimhood – a remarkable state of affairs.</p>
<p>And another important point: there is still <a href="https://apnews.com/ea3e3e6b24034a88b3f397e77028c73e/Q&A:-What-Cohen's-plea,-Manafort's-verdict-mean-for-Trump">no clear crime</a> that would make Trump impeachable. There is still not enough in the Manafort verdict and Cohen plea bargain to force Republicans to desert the man on whom their <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-republicans/its-trumps-party-now-and-us-republicans-could-pay-in-november-idUSKBN1J937X">fortunes</a> in the November midterm elections (and beyond) depend.</p>
<p>American politics is about to become even more partisan and personal because the legal stakes have just gotten higher. Are they high enough to end the Trump presidency, though? Probably not. There is some way to go and many more days in court before we can answer that with any confidence.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101973/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Timothy J. Lynch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The legal travails of Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen bring the Mueller investigation into the White House.Timothy J. Lynch, Associate Professor in American Politics, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.