Speaker 1: For eighteen months, Bob Bauer held one of the most
Speaker 1: important jobs in Barack Obama's White House, though it was
Speaker 1: almost entirely behind the scenes. Bauer served as White House Council,
Speaker 1: essentially the president's top legal advisor. He has since returned
Speaker 1: to private practice in the law firm Perkins Coy, where
Speaker 1: he specializes in political and campaign law, and he's speaking
Speaker 1: out on the legal issues facing the current president, including
Speaker 1: the investigation over Russian election middling. In a new post
Speaker 1: on the blog Just Security, he argues that there may
Speaker 1: already be enough public evidence to make a criminal case
Speaker 1: over the Trump campaign's role in the Russian Russian hacking scandal. Bob,
Speaker 1: thank you for joining us. Let's let's talk about the
Speaker 1: post um and let's let's start with the legal provision
Speaker 1: you think could be in play. What is the law
Speaker 1: that potentially somebody may have violated. There is a comprehensive
Speaker 1: band under Federal campaign financial on for national activity to
Speaker 1: influence federal, state, or local elections, and it has a
Speaker 1: purpose somewhat different from the other visions of federal campaign financials.
Speaker 1: The others are directed at corruption of the government by
Speaker 1: USA nationals, and among the other devices among the devices
Speaker 1: or mechanisms for doing that, or contribution limits, restrictions on
Speaker 1: the source of funding, disclosure requirements on the like. The
Speaker 1: Foreign National Prohibition is aimed essentially, it's a national security
Speaker 1: measure at keeping these influences over American elections within the
Speaker 1: American political community, and so it has a different thrust
Speaker 1: and it is more comprehensive in its scope. So explain
Speaker 1: a little bit more how you feel that there has
Speaker 1: been a campaign finance violation hiding in plain site. What
Speaker 1: I suggested was that hiding in plain side or the
Speaker 1: elements of a violation. Obviously, this is something that's going
Speaker 1: to be assume included in the investigation now under way
Speaker 1: into the Trump campaign Russia connect action. So there's going
Speaker 1: to be some careful thought being given to the range
Speaker 1: of evidence and to how it all adds up. But
Speaker 1: as we look at it in the first instance, to
Speaker 1: determine whether there's even any reason to look in this direction.
Speaker 1: Here you have a clear cut case, validated by our
Speaker 1: intelligence community, of a foreign power trying to influence a
Speaker 1: federal election, in fact, a presidential election, and the nominee
Speaker 1: of one of the two major parties welcoming encouraging this
Speaker 1: activity and using what comes out of it. The President
Speaker 1: said that he hoped Russia would find the secretary Clinton's
Speaker 1: deleted emails he read from wikiwik emails at his campaign.
Speaker 1: In fact, in the last month of the campaign he
Speaker 1: cited these emails a hundred and twenty four different times.
Speaker 1: He brought them up in presidential debates. So he was
Speaker 1: clearly signaling to the Russians. Again, the question of whether
Speaker 1: he intended to do so or not as a question,
Speaker 1: but he clearly was signaling to the Russians, certainly signaling
Speaker 1: to everybody d else that he thought this material acquired
Speaker 1: through illegal hacking activity had premended value to his campaign. Now,
Speaker 1: the campaign finance laws apply, and this particular foreign national
Speaker 1: prohibition applies to contributions or expenditures of the conventional kind,
Speaker 1: like for example, paid advertising, but also to anything of value.
Speaker 1: And clearly his campaign thought it had value because it
Speaker 1: was put actively the youth and it was encouraged. The
Speaker 1: same provision also provides that persons could have liability for
Speaker 1: a foreign nationals activities if they provide substantial assistance to
Speaker 1: the foreign national in its attempts to influence an election.
Speaker 1: Does all of this Trump campaign activity to encourage uh,
Speaker 1: the Russian activity and to make use of it. Does
Speaker 1: that constitutes substantial assistance under the federal campaign finance laws
Speaker 1: such that the Trump campaign might be liable for it.
Speaker 1: I think that's a reasonable question under the plain language
Speaker 1: of the regulation. And to the extent that it was
Speaker 1: knowing that that's what they intended to do, then you
Speaker 1: certainly have a criminally enforceable provision. You certainly have the
Speaker 1: potential for criminal activity. My point in saying that it
Speaker 1: was in plain sight is that we've heard any number
Speaker 1: of commentators say that they thought there really wasn't anything there,
Speaker 1: that what we knew to day really didn't indicate a
Speaker 1: potential violation of any law. And to the extent that
Speaker 1: they looked at the question, they tended to look at
Speaker 1: espionage statutes and wire tap statutes. I don't think that's correct.
Speaker 1: If there is a campaign finance law issue here, this
Speaker 1: is an unprecedented situation. I can't tell you that the
Speaker 1: law has ever been I don't think it has ever
Speaker 1: been applied in similar circumstances. But that's because there haven't
Speaker 1: been similar circumstances