Reading Mueller: two elements make the crime

I think we have confirmation that President Trump hasn't read the Mueller report -- or perhaps that he is functionally illiterate as the many gaps in his general knowledge suggest.

As you've certainly heard, the Orange Tweeto recently gave a long interview to ABC News.

Asked by ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in the Oval Office on Wednesday whether his campaign would accept ... information from foreigners -- such as China or Russia -- or hand it over the FBI, Trump said, "I think maybe you do both."

"I think you might want to listen, there isn't anything wrong with listening," Trump continued. "If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent' -- oh, I think I'd want to hear it."

Mueller has carefully explained just why Trump's willingness to accept foreign offers of "opposition research" could be a crime; the President would do well to attempt some reading.

In the section of the Mueller Report titled "Prosecution and Declination Decisions," the Special Counsel carefully lays out why he did not bring any charges against Don Jr. or Jared Kushner in relation to the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting at which these campaign leaders met Russians offering "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. Mueller interpreted the law against foreign contributions to require that what foreigners offered be "a thing of value" -- in this case likely, but not something ever settled by a court. He's completely clear on what is wrong with foreign intervention in a presidential election.

... candidate-related opposition research given to a campaign for the purpose of influencing an election could constitute a contribution to which the foreign-source ban could apply. A campaign can be assisted not only by the provision of funds, but also by the provision of derogatory information about an opponent. 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. At the same time, no judicial decision has 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. ... It is uncertain how courts would resolve those issues.

In addition, for what occurred at the meeting to constitute an indictable offense, the people involved had to know receiving Russian help to the campaign was against the law.

Most significantly, the government has not obtained admissible evidence that is likely to establish the scienter [knowledge] 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.

Mueller couldn't prove the Trumpkins knew what they were doing.

That cannot be said of the President. He's just announced he'll commit the same putative crime if he gets the chance. There's no defense of ignorance here.

I'm slowly reading the Mueller Report out of respect for all the lawyers who have been struggling to maintain the rule of law in a lawless season. They are heroes of a sort, even the ones I disagree with politically. Previous installments:
Reading Mueller: of social media and hacking
Reading Mueller: Russians, Russians, and more Russians