Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is overseeing the Department of Justice’s probe into Russian meddling in our election, has obtained records of suspicious ad purchases from Facebook via search warrants. While this particular revelation might appear to be worse for Facebook than anyone in the Trump administration, former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti took to Twitter to explain why this might be worse for Trump than even his son’s meeting with a Russian lawyer to get dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Mariotti first notes that if Mueller had a warrant, it means he’d concluded that foreigners were making contributions to our electoral process. If anyone in the Trump administration helped, they’re in a world of trouble now.
Why? We already know that foreigners can’t legally contribute in any way to our elections. That’s a crime, but it’s also a crime to aid and abet a crime. Ad buys targeted to American voters that are designed to influence our elections are considered contributions. According to Mariotti, if anyone in the Trump administration knew about this and helped in a tangible way, they’re guilty of aiding and abetting a hostile foreign power.
They wouldn’t have to have been actively involved in the whole process, or even know everyone involved, either. It would be enough if they agreed to play just a small role. Mariotti says this carries considerably more weight with the law than Don Jr.’s meeting with the Russian attorney because it’s really difficult to claim ignorance of the law or of intent on this (because DUH). The Russians involved with the ad buys had a clear intent to sway American voters toward Trump. One would have to be blind not to know that.
As such, it would be really difficult for anyone in the Trump administration (or really, any American at all) to say, “Oh, gee, I didn’t know what they were doing, or that it was illegal. Sorry.” A jury would be inclined to convict regardless of how loudly the defendant screamed, “I DIDN’T KNOW!!”
At the end of his thread, Mariotti says that if he “represented someone who was caught up in this part of the investigation, [he’d] be very worried.”
As a current attorney and former federal prosecutor, he’d know better than the average person what kind of implication Mueller’s information has for the Trump administration. Now, it’s entirely possible that nobody knew about the ad buys, let alone played even the smallest role in them, but with other evidence piling up against Trump and his lackeys, that looks less and less likely.
Read Mariotti’s full thread below:
THREAD: Why news that Mueller obtained a search warrant for Facebook content may be the biggest news in the case since the Manafort raid.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
1/ Last night, the @WSJ reported that Mueller obtained info from Facebook via search warrant: https://t.co/zYqf1LCqaW
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
2/ The @WSJ talks about some of the info Mueller obtained (see below). Mueller could not obtain *content* of an account without a warrant. pic.twitter.com/Hl2wMuyF3Y
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
3/ I was initially wary about discussing implications of this story because I worried @WSJ may have presumed a warrant that didn’t exist.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
4/ But @CNN has confirmed that Mueller obtained content via search warrant, including ads, acct details, targeting. https://t.co/DQ5fVB1fH3
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
5/ That is huge news. It means that Mueller has concluded that specific foreign individuals committed a crime by making a “contribution”
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
6/ in connection with an election. It also means that he has evidence of that crime that convinced a federal magistrate judge of two things.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
7/ First, that there was good reason to believe that the foreign individual committed the crime. Second, that evidence of the crime existed
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
8/ on Facebook. Why is that big news? Until now, Mueller’s efforts to obtain information about Russian interference in the election could
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
9/ be seen as an effort to gain counterintelligence or to investigate a matter unlikely to result in charges. Now we know he believes that
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
10/ he’s close to charging specific foreign people with a crime. Can he do that? Yes, if they committed a crime in the U.S.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
11/ For example, my former boss indicted Osama Bin Laden for the first World Trade Center bombing.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
12/ So what does this mean for Trump and his associates? This news also has large implications for them.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
13/ It is a crime to know that a crime is taking place and to help it succeed. That’s aiding and abetting. If any Trump associate knew about
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
14/ the foreign contributions that Mueller’s search warrant focused on and helped that effort in a tangible way, they could be charged.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
15/ In addition, anyone who agreed to be part of this effort in any way could be charged with criminal conspiracy. They wouldn’t need to
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
16/ be involved in the whole operation or know everyone involved but they would have to agree to be part of some piece of it.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
17/ One thing I should note is that this particular violation of the law preventing foreign contributions in connection with an election
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
18/ is far stronger than earlier speculation that Donald Trump Jr. violated the same law by accepting information from the Russian attorney.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
19/ One hurdle is that to violate the statute criminally, you have to do so knowingly and willfully. Here, Mueller has evidence that the
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
20/ foreigner(s) had that intent, and it is far more difficult for an American to claim that he/she didn’t know that a massive Russian
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
21/ influence operation was against the law than it would be to claim that about hearing talk at a meeting. Jurors would be inclined to
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
22/ convict anyone who was part of or aided a Russian effort to subvert our election.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
23/ If I represented someone who was caught up in this part of the investigation, I’d be very worried. /end
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
ADDENDUM: In case you’re curious, here’s the statute I discuss in this thread: https://t.co/iKGetYqe0i
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 16, 2017
Featured image via Win McNamee/Getty Images
