Walking down the money trail
The Mueller investigation is digging deep and making troubling discoveries
The critical revelation last week that special counsel Robert Mueller has subpoenaed Deutsche Bank, as reported by The Wall Street Journal and other news outlets, was nearly drowned out by a barrage of other blockbuster developments, yet it carries several important lessons and requires that we revise our judgments about the investigation’s course.
The subpoena, it turned out, had been issued several weeks before and apparently called on the bank to turn over records involving people and entities affiliated with President Donald Trump’s and his family’s financial dealings.
Deutsche Bank, which earlier this year paid $630 million to settle charges of laundering $10 billion for Russian clients, maintained a peculiarly close relationship with Mr. Trump even as other big banks shunned him, wary of his six bankruptcies and volatile business conduct.
Most strangely, the bank agreed to lend Mr. Trump $300 million even after he was in arrears on another $640 million loan, which Mr. Trump contested, suing the bank for $3 billion. (An obvious question for investigators here would be what entity helped secure or guarantee the new loan.) Deutsche Bank separately has lent Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, some $285 million.
The first point the subpoena reminds us of is that we can’t judge the progress of the Mueller investigation by the modicum of information available from media. Mr. Mueller, the consummate pro, is indifferent to public reaction during the course of his investigation and reveals information only to the court and as necessary. He will lay down his cards, all his cards, only when he wants to. The rest of the limited view we receive tends to come from defense sources and may include a lot of self-serving spin.
Thus, all the reporting — and crowing on the right — that Mr. Mueller’s work has now been reduced to just an obstruction-of-justice investigation was dead wrong. In fact, it is as likely that the investigation has broadened.
When Mr. Mueller came aboard, three possibilities seemed likely to be examined: 1) conspiracy to influence the election (i.e, the poorly chosen and malleable term “collusion”); 2) obstruction of justice by the president with respect to the investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn; and 3) Mr. Trump’s pre-candidacy financial escapades.
Two new topics now may be on the table: 4) the selling of foreign policy and the rogue foreign policy conduct at the center of which was Mr. Flynn; and 5) foreign corrupt practices and the consorting by former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and others with crooked foreign governments and assorted international goons.
Second, assuming Mr. Mueller does pursue the money trail methodically, the Deutsche Bank subpoena portends a long road ahead, a year or more. It takes many months of painstaking work to get on top of this sort of paperdriven, white-collar investigation, which you have to do before witness interviews and which no cooperating witness can do that much to short-circuit. The Enron/ Arthur Andersen case, for example, dragged on for more than 10 years (though much of that time was taken up with defendants’ successful court appeals). Mr. Mueller’s staff includes some of the premier whitecollar prosecutors in the country, and they no doubt will do it right and thoroughly.
Third, Mr. Mueller’s resolve to follow the money trail sets up a High Noon showdown between Mr. Mueller and Mr. Trump. As others have noted, investigating Mr. Trump’s finances is the red line that the president said Mr. Mueller couldn’t cross. Not surprisingly, Mr. Mueller ignored Mr.Trump’s warning.
At the moment, the president is politically weak and legally vulnerable, setting up the circumstances for him to return to the “witch hunt” mantra and fire Mr. Mueller. I have written, as have others, about the cascade of events and constitutional crisis that could ensue.
Finally, the Deutsche Bank subpoena means that Mr. Mueller now will be venturing into what always has been the darkest corner of the investigation. Is Mr. Trump financially or otherwise compromised to the point that he is beholden to Russia? Does Russia have unique knowledge of Mr. Trump’s finances and the ability to ameliorate his financial difficulties? Is the Christopher Steele dossier, with its core allegation that “the Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least 5 years,” more right than wrong?
The possibility feels as far-fetched as it is terrifying. Yet Mr. Trump’s consistent solicitousness to Russia — in contrast to his promiscuous boorishness to other foreign leaders, members of Congress and even his own Cabinet officials — seems to defy explanation.
There’s little doubt that Russia maintains a file on Mr. Trump that it has been assembling since at least the 1980s; it’s not hard to imagine that it includes some lurid personal details and financial improprieties.
Still, considering Mr. Trump a Manchurian candidate seems like bad science fiction, beyond the pale of belief. If he is, it would be the most explosive political scandal in American history. Nevertheless, this possibility is more plausible in some respects than certain alternative explanations for his reliably pro-Russian policies and pronouncements.
No one is better qualified than Mr. Mueller to give all of the possibilities a cleareyed look. It is to the good of the country that he do so.