June 9 Meeting and the Campaign Finacne Law Violation

6/9/16 Meeting
Trump Campaign met a Russian attorney expecting to receive derogatory information about Hillary Clinton from the Russian government. The meeting was proposed to Donald Trump Jr. from Robert Goldstone at the request of Emin Agalarov. Trump Jr. invited Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner to attend the meeting. Michael Cohen recalled that Trump Jr. may have told candidate Trump about an upcoming meeting to receive adverse information about Clinton, without linking the meeting to Russia. Natalia Veselnitskaya claimed that funds derived from illegal activities in Russia were provided to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats. Trump Jr. requested evidence to support those claims, but Veselnitskaya did not provide such information. She and her associates then turned to a critique of the origins of the Magnitsky Act. After the election, Veselnitskaya made additional efforts to follow up on the meeting, but the Trump Transition Team did not engage.
event	description	involved individuals
Setting Up the 6/916 Meeting	Outreach to Donald Trump Jr. 4/x/16: Trump responded to a letter from Aras Agalarov. Aras Agalarov expressed interest in Trump's campaign. 6/3/16: Emin Agalarov called Goldstone [black out] who indicated that the attorney [Natalia Veselnitskaya] was a prosecutor. [black out] Goldstone recalled that the information that might interest the Trumps involved Hillary Clinton [black out] Shortly after 6/3/16: Goldstone emailed Trump Jr: ..... "The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his [Emin] father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hilary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and Its government's support for Mr. Trump"..... Trump Jr. responded: .... "if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer......" Goldstone conveyed Trump Jr.'s interest to Emin Agalarov, emailing that Trump Jr. "wants to speak personally on the issue". 6/6/16: Goldstone again emailed Trump Jr. and asked when Trump Jr. was "free to talk with Emin about this Hillary info. 6/6/16 and 6/7/16 Trump Jr. and Emin Agalarov had multiple brief calls. On the same day 6/6/16: Aras Agalarov called Ike Kaveladze and asked him to attend the meeting. Aras Agalarov asked Kaveladze if he knew anything about the Magnitsky Act, and Aras sent him a short synopsis for the meeting and Veselnitskaya's business card.	Robert Goldstone: Emin's then-publicist. He is a music and events promoter who represented Emin Agalarov from approximately late 2012 until late 2016. He facilitated the ongoing contact between the Trumps and the Agalarovs. Aras Agalarov: Russian real-estate developer with ties to Putin and other members of the Russian government, including Yuri Chaika. He was president of the Crocus Group, a Russian enterprise that holds substantial Russian government construction contracts. He worked with Trump in connection with the Pageant in Moscow and a potential Trump Tower Moscow Project. The relationship continued over time. Emin Agalarov: son of Russian real-estate developer Aras Agalarov, then-client of Robert Goldstone Yuri Chaika: Russia's Prosecutor General Natalia Veselnitskaya: Russian attorney, from approximately 1998 until 2001, Veselnitskaya worked as a prosecutor for the Central Administrative District of the Russian Prosecutor's Office; she continued to perform government-related work and maintain ties to the Russian government following her departure. She lobbied and testified about the Magnitsky Act. Veselnitskaya performed legal work for Denis Katsyv for his company Prevezon Holdings Ltd. Denis Katsyv: son of Russian businessman Peter Katsyv Prevezon Holdings Ltd.: Denis Katsyv's company which was a defendant in a civil-forfeiture action alleging the laundering of proceeds from the fraud exposed by Magnitsky. Magnitsky Act: (x/x/12) statute that imposed financial and travel sanctions on Russian officials which was named for a Russian tax specialist who exposed a fraud and later died in a Russian prison. Putin called the statute "a purely political, unfriendly act," and Russia responded by barring a list of current and former U.S. officials from entering Russia and by halting the adoption of Russian children by U.S. citizens. Ike Kaveladze: Georgia-born, naturalized U.S. citizen who worked in the United States for the Crocus Group and reported to Aras Agalarov.
	Awareness of the Meeting Within the Campaign 6/7/16: Goldstone emailed Trump Jr. Trump Jr. replied that Manafort, Jared Kushner, and Trump Jr. would attend. Kaveladze [short Black Out]. "puzzled" by the list of attendees and that he checked with Roman Beniaminov, who said that the purpose of the meeting was for Veselnitskaya to convey "negative information on Hillary Clinton. 6/8/16: Trump Jr. forwarded the entirety of his email correspondence regarding the meeting with Goldstone to Manafort and Kushner, under the subject line "FW: Russia - Clinton - private and confidential" Rick Gates (stated to the Office): days before 6/9/16 Trump Jr. announced at a regular morning meeting that he had a lead on negative information about the Clinton Foundation. Trump Jr. said the information was coming from a group in Kyrgyzstan and that he was introduced to the group by a friend. Rick Gates recalled that the meeting was attended by Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Paul Manafort, Hope Hicks, and, joining late by Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. Michale Cohen (stated to the Office): On 6/6/16 and 6/7/16 Being in Donald J. Trump's office, when Trump Jr. told his father that a meeting to obtain adverse information about Clinton was going forward. Cohen did not recall Trump Jr. stating that the meeting was connected to Russia. From the tenor of the conversation, Cohen believed that Trump Jr. had previously discussed the meeting with his father. In an interview with the Senate Judiciary Committee, however, Trump Jr. stated that he did not inform his father about the emails or the upcoming meeting	Roman Beniaminov: one of Emin Agalarov's assistants Paul Manafort: campaign chairman Jared Kushner: senior advisor Rick Gates: deputy campaign chairman
The Events of 6/9/16	Arrangements for the Meeting Veselnitskaya called Rinat Akhmetshin and they met Kaveladze and Anatoli Samochornov, [black out]. According to several participants, Veselnitskaya showed Akhmetshin a document alleging financial misconduct by Bill Browder and the Ziff brothers and those individuals subsequently making political donations to the DNC. The Group then went to the Meeting	Rinat Akhmetshin: Soviet-born U.S.  Russian-American lobbyist and former Soviet counterintelligence officer. is a registered lobbyist for an organization run by Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. He told the Office that he had worked on issues relating to the Magnitsky Act and had worked on the Prevezon litigation Anatoli Samochornov: Russian-born translator who had assisted Veselnitskaya with Magnitsky-related lobbying and the Prevezon case. Bill Browder: Americans with business in Russia Ziff brothers: Americans with business in Russia
	Conduct of the Meeting Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner participated on the Trump side; Kaveladze, Samochomov, Akhmetshin, and Goldstone attended with Veselnitskaya [The Office spoke to every participant except Veselnitskaya and Trump Jr., the latter of whom declined to be voluntarily interviewed; Notes that Manafort took on his phone reflect the general flow of the conversation, although not all of its details.][Black Out] Participants recalled that - Veselnitskaya had stated that the Ziff brothers had broken Russian laws and had donated their profits to the DNC or the Clinton Campaign. According to Akhmetshin, Trump Jr. asked follow-up questions about how the alleged payments could be tied specifically to the Clinton Campaign, but Veselnitskaya indicated that she could not trace the money once it entered the United State. Kaveladze similarly recalled that Trump Jr. asked what they have on Clinton Akhmetshin then spoke about U.S. sanctions imposed under the Magnitsky Act and Russia's response. Trump Jr. also said that they could revisit the issue if and when they were in government. Samochornov recalled that Kushner departed the meeting before it concluded; Veselnitskaya's press interviews and written statements to Congress differ materially from other accounts. 7/x/17 press interview: claimed that she has no connection to the Russian government and had not referred to any derogatory information concerning the Clinton Campaign when she met with Trump Campaign officials; 11/x/17 written submission to the Senate Judiciary Committee: the purpose of the meeting was not to connect with "the Trump Campaign" but rather to have "a private meeting with Donald Trump Jr in informing the Congress members as to the criminal nature of manipulation and interference with the legislative activities of the US Congress. Trump Jr: 7/x/17 tel interview: if "someone has information on our opponent I should hear them out. 9/x/17 congress testimony: he thought he should "listen to what Rob and his colleagues had to say. Kaveladze reported to Aras Agalarov that the meeting had gone well, but he later told Aras Agalarov that the meeting about the Magnitsky Act had been a waste of time because it was not with lawyers and they were "preaching to the wrong crowd"
Post-6/9/16 Events	Veselnitskaya and Aras Agalarov'[unsuccessful] attempts to meet with Trump representatives to convey similar information about Browder and the Magnitsky Act. 11/23/16: Kaveladze emailed Goldstone about setting up another meeting "with T people" [Trump's People] and sent a document bearing allegations similar to those conveyed on 6/9/16. Goldstone emailed the document to Rhona Graff, saying that "Aras Agalarov has asked me to pass on this document. 1/x/17: Kaveladze contacted again to set up another meeting, but Goldstone did not make the request. Participants in the 6/9/16 meeting began receiving inquires from attorneys representing the Trump Organization. 6/x/17: Goldstone spoke with Alan Garten, emailed Veselnitskaya's name to Garten; later 6/x/17: Goldstone participated in a lengthier call with Garten and Alan Futerfas 6/x/17: Goldstone emailed Emin Agalarov with the subject "Trump attorneys" and stated that he was "interviewed by attorneys" about the June 9 meeting who were "concerned because it links Don Jr. to officials from Russia-which he has always denied meeting." June 9 Meeting became public 7/9/17: Goldstone texted to Emin "I made sure I kept you and your father out of [t]his story," 7/12/16: Emin Agalarov complained to Kaveladze that his father, Aras, "never listens" to him and that their relationship with "Mr T has been thrown down the drain 8/x/16: Goldstone stated that his "reputation [was] basically destroyed by the Meeting. So [I] am painted as some mysterious link to Putin. Cover Up Attempts Representatives from the Trump Organization again reached out to participants: 7/10/16: Futerfas sent Goldstone an email proposed for Goldstone to issue an statement [ it appears Trump Jr. also made a similar statement]- "The meeting was a complete waste of time and Don was never told Ms. Veselnitskaya' s name prior to the meeting. Ms. Veselnitskaya mostly talked about the Magnitsky Act and Russian adoption laws and the meeting lasted 20 to 30 minutes at most. There was never any follow up and nothing ever came of the meeting" [Black Out] and proposed an alternative statement asserting that he [Goldstone ] had been asked by Emin Agalarov - to facilitate a meeting between a Russian attorney (Natalia Veselnitzkaya) and Donald Trump Jr. The lawyer had apparently stated that she had some information regarding funding to the DNC from Russia, which she believed Mr. Trump Jr. might find interesting." Goldstone never released either statement On the Russian side, there were also communications about what participants should say about the Meeting. At Veselnitskaya's request, the Organization [an anti-Magnitsky Act group] sent Samochornov a transcript of a Veselnitskaya press interview, and Samochornov understood that the organization would pay his legal fees only if he made statements consistent with Veselnitskaya's. Samochornov declined.	Rhona Graff: a long-standing executive assistant to Donald Trump and senior vice-president of the Trump Organization. Alan Garten: Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer at The Trump Organization Alan Futerfas: outside counsel for the Trump Organization (and, subsequently, personal counsel for Trump Jr.). the Organization: an anti-Magnitsky Act group controlled by Veselnitskaya and the owner of Prevezon that hired Samochornov
Later Cover Up Attempts Refer to this post on the table titled - Efforts to Prevent Disclosure of Information about the 6/9/19 Meeting. An reiterated summary was provide here: On at least three occasions between 6/29/17 and 7/9/17, the President directed Hope Hicks and others not to publicly disclose information about the 6/9/16 meeting. After the media reported the Meeting, Trump directed his son and his communications director to issue a false public statement in 6/x/17 about 6/9/16 meeting. Trump Jr. was the only Trump associate who participated in that meeting and who declined to be voluntarily interviewed by the Office (Mueller's office). In trump's written answer he did not answer the Question regarding whether he might suggest to or direct anyone not to discuss or release publicly all or any portion of the emails [see next: email communications between Trump Jr and Robert Goldstone from 6/3/16-6/9/16]. Ms. Hicks told the Office that she went multiple times to the Trump to “Urge him that they should be fully transparent about the June 9th meeting. Trump directed Ms. Hicks to say, “Only that Trump Jr. took a brief meeting and was about Russian adoption,” because Trump Jr.’s statement to The New York Times “said too much,” according to Ms. Hicks, Trump still directed her to say the meeting was only about Russian adoption Trump's Written Answer Question a: Trump's Answer: he has "no recollection of learning at the time" that his son, Manafort, or Kushner was considering participating in a meeting in 6/9/16 concerning potentially negative information about Hillary Clinton." Question b (i-iv) Trump's Answer: Trump has no recollection of learning of time and topic of the Meeting at the time; he had no recollection about learning the series of email communications between Trump Jr and Robert Goldstone from 6/3/16-6/9/16 as shown in Exhibit A; he did not answer the b.iv as regarding whether he might suggest to or direct anyone not to discuss or release publicly all or any portion of the emails reflected in Exhibit A Question c(i-iv) Trump answered together with Questions a, b. Question d: Trump's Answer: he said he has no independent recollection of what portion of these four days (6/6/16-6/9/16) he spent in Trump Tower where the Meeting took place. Trump then referenced to his Campaign calendar and admitting that during 6/6/16-6/9/16 he was in New York and admitting that he was in Trump Tower during a portion of each of these days some portion of the day he was leaving for his scheduled Activities. He mentioned the media report could prove what he had done on those days. he stated "The 6/9/16 calendar indicates I was scheduled to attend midday meetings and a fundraising luncheon at the Four Seasons Hotel." In the final paragraph of the answer to question d. he stated "At this point in time, I do not remember whether I spoke or met with Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner on 6/9/16. My desk calendar indicates I was scheduled to meet with Paul Manafort on the morning of June 9, but I do not recall if that meeting took place." in his final words, he stressed he was busy in those days and implied it was "Long Time" ago to justify his memory no-recollection Question e: [is about communication between Trump Campaign and Russian after 6/3/16] Trump's Answer: "I have no independent recollection of any communications I had with the Agalarov family or anyone r understood to be a representative of the Agalarov family after 6/3/16 and before the end of the campaign. While preparing to respond to these questions [refer to Mueller's interview question] I have become aware of written communications with the Agalarovs...."  Trump then briefly mentioned what those communications about.
Question f: [is about communication post-6/9/16 Meeting with Russian concerning the 6/9/16 meeting] Trump's Answer: "I do not recall being aware during the campaign of communications between Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner and any member or representative of the Agalarov family, Robert Goldstone, Natalia Yeselnitskaya (whose name I was not familiar with), or anyone I understood to be a Russian official. Question g (i-vi) [is about Trump's 6/7/16 speech - "I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we're going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons.'' {next Monday is 6/13/16}, but Trump ultimately did not give this speech] Question g.iv: "Did you expect any of the information to have come from the June 9 meeting?" Trump answer:  Trump essentially denied any link of the speech with the alleged information from the Meeting.  He stated "In general, l expected to give a speech referencing the publicly available, negative information about the Clintons." He said "In the course of preparing to respond to your questions, I have become aware that the Campaign documents already produced to you reflect the drafting, evolution, and sources of information for the expected speech. These documents generally show that the text of the speech was initially drafted by Campaign staff with input from various outside advisors and was based on publicly available material....."
Question h and i [is about Russia 's support in general post 6/9/16] Question h Trump's Answer: "I have no recollection of being told during the campaign that Vladimir Putin or the Russian government "supported" my candidacy or "opposed" the candidacy of Hillary Clinton." Question i: Trump's Answer: "I have no recollection of being told during the campaign that any foreign government or foreign leader had provided, wished to provide, or offered to provide tangible support to my campaign." Reference To Steele Dossier Report 80 (6/20/16) allegation 1, x, 5 and 6 [Report 80 (6/20/16) allegation x] Kremlin had been feeding TRUMP and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents, including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, for several years [report 80 (6/20/16) allegation 5 and 6] A dossier of compromising material on Hillary CLINTON has been collated by the Russian Intelligence Services over many years and mainly comprises bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls rather than any embarrassing conduct. CLINTON dossier was controlled exclusively by chief spokesman, Dmitry PESKOV ... on the explicit instructions of PUTIN himself..... Report 97 (7/30/16) Allegation 4 (not quoted here) Report 111 (9/13/16) Allegation 3 (not quoted here) For more information on Clinton 'Derogatory Info' go to this section of this post For Alleged Collusion - Report 95 (date not provided 7/x/16)  Allegations 1 There was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them [Trump Campaign) and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the TRUMP side by campaign manager Paul MANAFORT......... For more information on Collusion on Manafort in general , go to this section of this post

6/9/16 Meeting And The Campaign Finance Statutes (Mueller Report)

The 6/9/16 Meeting implicates campaign finance statutes. However, Schemes involving the Solicitation or Receipt of assistance from foreign sources raise difficult statutory and constitutional questions. After evaluating those questions, Mueller indicated that a prosecution would encounter difficulties proving that Trump Campaign willfully [intentionally] violated the law, even though the principal legal questions favor the government [Prosecution].

Legal Background

[citation from precedent case]
"[T]he United States has a compelling interest ... in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in activities of democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process." To that aim, federal campaign finance law broadly prohibits:[52 U.S.C. § 30121]

• foreign nationals from making or "an express or implied promise to make" contributions, donations, expenditures, or other disbursements in connection with federal, state, or local candidate elections,
• anyone from soliciting, accepting, or receiving such contributions or donations; or other thing of value.

The term "contribution," includes "any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value". It excludes, among other things, "the value of [volunteer] services." [52 U.S.C. § 30101]
The term "expenditure" includes "any purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value. It excludes, among other things, news stories and non-partisan get-out-the-vote activities.
The term "electioneering communication" is a broadcast communication that "refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office" and is made within specified time periods and targeted at the relevant electorate. [52 U.S.C. § 30104 (f)(3)]
The "foreign national" was defined by reference to FARA and the Immigration and Nationality Act, with minor modification. [52 U.S.C. § 30121(b)]
The willful standards ["knowing and willful" violation] will require some "proof of the defendant's knowledge of the law".

Application to 6/9/16 Trump Tower Meeting

Mueller's evaluation conclusion and decision [original quote]

The Office concluded that, in light of the government's substantial burden of proof on issues of intent ("knowing" and "willful"), and the difficulty of establishing the value of the offered information, criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that "the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction."

Evidence of Potential Violation:

• Trump Jr 's response after being informed of - {an "offer" from Russia's Crown prosecutor to the Trump campaign of official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia as "very high level and sensitive information" that is "part of Russia and its government's support to Mr. Trump[refer to 6/3/16 email from Goldstone]}
  "if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer."
• The communications setting up the meeting and the attendance by high-level Campaign representatives support the inference that Campaign anticipated receiving derogatory documents and information from official Russian sources that could assist candidate Trump's electoral prospects.

This series of events could implicate the violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30121 (a) (l)(A).

Criminal Violation Consideration 18 U.S.C. § 371

Mueller considered whether these evidence would establish a conspiracy to violate the foreign contributions ban, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. There are reasonable arguments that the offered information would constitute a "thing of value". but Mueller determined and believed that the government would not be likely to obtain and sustain a conviction because of:

• The admissible evidence might not be sufficient to prove the 'willful' intention [i.e. the general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct]
• It might be difficult to prove - the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation [52 U.S.C. § 30109 (d)(l)(A)(i).]

Willfulness

Mueller discussed the difficulty to prove the 'willful' intention. He said government [the Office] has not obtained admissible evidence that might establish the scienter - [the knowledge of the nature of one's act that is often a necessary element of an offense] - requirement beyond a reasonable doubt. To prove that a defendant acted "knowingly and willfully," the government would have to show that the defendant had general knowledge that his conduct was unlawful. This standard creates an elevated scienter element that offender is more probably to defend his case on the issue of Intent

He said - The investigation has not developed evidence to prove the 6/9/16 Meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful and that they were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban. The government [The Office] does not have strong evidence of surreptitious behavior or effo11s at concealment at the time ofthe June 9 meeting. [they engaged in concealment aftermath]

He explained that - that concealment occurred more than a year later, involved individuals who did not attend the meeting, and may reflect an intention to avoid political consequences rather than any prior knowledge of illegality.

The Thing of Value Element and Difficulties in Valuing Promised Information

Mueller discussed the thing of value element in detail, again extensively citing precedent cases to illustrate the broadness of the term. He also cited Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations on the broadness of the term 'thing of a value".

He mentioned Political campaigns frequently conduct and pay for opposition research. A foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money or tangible things of value.

He then raised the difficulty issue:

• There is no judicial decision (precedence) that had treated the voluntary provision of uncompensated opposition research or similar information as a thing of value that could amount to a contribution under campaign-finance law.
• Such an interpretation could raise First Amendment questions beyond foreign-source contribution ban
• It could be especially difficult if the promised information consisted simply of the recounting of historically [accurate] facts.
• Difficulties in valuing promised information

Mueller stressed the difficulty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeds the threshold for a criminal violation, as well as the threshold for felony punishment. [52 U.S.C. § 30109 (d)(l)]. The type of evidence commonly used to establish the value of non-monetary contributions - market value or acquisition cost or cost of distribution- does not apply in this setting. Goldstone's description of the offered material here was quite general, nonspecific and may have been understood as being of uncertain, given Goldstone's lack of direct access to the original source.

_______________________________

Hong Gan's note: Mueller's discussion on Campaign Finance Statute was not limited on the 6/9/16 Meeting, he also discussed another applicaton of factual context in terms of Campaign Finance Statutes. But that area was almost all being redacted. No information could be drawn from the redacted report of what specific contextual facts was being discussed.

Return to Links Between Trump Campain And Russia (Mueller Report) Table Of Contents

Return to Loose Collusion Content List