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