Pardons and spies: New twists in the Russia probe
The
Times report potentially deepens the President's exposure to Mueller's
investigation because it raises the issue of whether his lawyer, John
Dowd, who recently resigned and who denied the report, was offering
potential pardons to sway the two men against cooperating with the
special counsel.
A
more fundamental question is why Trump's team could have been so
concerned about what Manafort and Flynn might have to say about the
President or his campaign.
The
report did not say whether Trump had discussed the pardons with Dowd
before he allegedly brought them up with the lawyers for the other men.
If the President had suggested pardons in order to thwart witness
testimony or frustrate the Russia investigation, it would clearly be of
interest to Mueller.
"If the
President was using his Constitutional authority to pardon in a way to
interfere with the investigation of Robert Mueller to influence the
testimony of prospective witnesses, that would clearly fit into the
obstruction of justice statutes, the interference with the witness
testifying statutes," said Michael Zeldin, a former federal prosecutor
who is now a CNN legal analyst.
If
Dowd was working at the direction of the President, it would also raise
the "prospect of an abuse of office and an impeachable offense," Zeldin
told CNN's Wolf Blitzer.
Like many
aspects of the Russia investigation, it is impossible to know exactly
what the special counsel knows and what went on in private
conversations. So the issues raised by the Times report will remain
unanswered for now. What is known is that pardons were not given.
Manafort is facing multiple charges related to his business affairs in
Ukraine and Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and is now
cooperating with Mueller.
The
report is a reminder, however, that Trump has a number of options to ice
the Mueller probe that do not include the nuclear option of trying to
fire the special counsel. And the use of legal pardon powers could
become a key issue down the road.
The
response of the White House to the Times report exemplified the
challenge Trump's team faces in fighting off wave after wave of
disclosures about the Mueller probe.
White
House press secretary Sarah Sanders could only refer to a statement by
another Trump lawyer, Ty Cobb, which did not explicitly address the
questions raised by the Times report.
"I've
only been asked about pardons by the press, and have routinely
responded on the record that no pardons are under discussion or under
consideration at the White House," Cobb said.
The
new intrigue about Gates was set off by a court filing by the special
counsel's office regarding the upcoming sentencing of Dutch lawyer Alex
van der Zwaan, who worked with Gates and Manafort, and has pleaded
guilty to lying to the Mueller investigation.
Prosecutors said they had connected Gates to a person with ties to a Russian intelligence service.
The news appeared to represent the most concrete link so far established by Mueller between the President's campaign and Russia.
Trump has repeatedly denied there was any collusion between his campaign and Moscow.
New court storm
Trump's
legal situation became yet more complicated with yet another
development -- a move by the lawyer for Stormy Daniels, the porn actress
who says she had an affair with Trump, to launch a defamation suit
against the President's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen.
Avenatti
plans to compel a deposition by the President, which could hinge on the
key question of what Trump knew about a $130,000 hush payment made to
Daniels just before the 2016 presidential election, which some analysts
believe could represent a violation of federal election laws.
In
the motion filed in federal court in California, Avenatti asked to
depose both Trump and Cohen, for "no greater than two hours." A hearing
on the request is set for April 30.
"We
want to know the truth about what the President knew, when he knew
about it and what he did about it," Avenatti said on CBS "This Morning"
Wednesday.
Trump's team is likely
to try to force the case surrounding the nondisclosure agreement that
Daniels is trying to void into arbitration, a process that takes place
largely behind closed doors and would avoid the dicey prospect of
presidential deposition under oath.
Trump has remained unusually silent on the Daniels offensive.
But
David Schwartz, Cohen's friend and attorney in another matter, said in a
statement that Avenatti's motion is "a reckless use of the legal
system" designed to "inflate Avenatti's deflated ego and keep himself
relevant."
Another risk for Trump
in this case and in others involving two other women, former
"Apprentice" contestant Summer Zervos, and ex-Playboy model Karen
McDougal is that he could become embroiled in legal discovery.
That
pre-trial process of gathering evidence could allow opposing lawyers to
comb through his personal and business history and force unflattering
material into the public eye.
Trump hotel case here to stay.
In
what turned out to be a grim day in court for Trump, there was trouble
on another front that involves the operation of his businesses and
allegations by critics that he has not done enough to head off potential
conflicts of interests as President.
Judge
Peter Messitte ruled that decisions by foreign governments to pay for
events at Trump's hotel -- potentially simply because it was owned by
the President -- could harm other hospitality businesses in the District
and Maryland.
Again, the issue for
Trump may not just be the possibility of a yet another legal battle
that would besiege his White House and the albeit distant possibility of
an impeachment charge for breaching the Constitution.
The
court case could also expose the President to the possibility that his
business history, which he has fought to keep out of the public eye,
could become a target of rival lawyers in a discovery process.
No comments:
Post a Comment