Here is an exposition and analysis of some of this week’s national security-related Twitter threads authored by Just Security Editorial Board member and former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.
Senate Judiciary Republicans Refer Steele Dossier Author to DOJ for Criminal Prosecution
Here, Mariotti raises questions about the referral by Sen. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Graham (R-La.) of Chris Steele to the DOJ and FBI for criminal prosecution. In his view, this referral is unlikely to contain information that the FBI does not already know, and appears to be an effort to undermine the Russia investigation.
1/ As I told @NatashaBertrand of @businessinsider, the criminal referral by Senators Grassley and Graham appears to either be a PR stunt or an attempt to use their position to influence DOJ charging decisions. https://t.co/zRxpdHdu9A
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
2/ It raises a lot of questions. Why not make this referral in private? What information do they have that is not already in the possession of the FBI? Why not wait until their investigation is complete?
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
3/ It appears to be an effort to undermine the Russia investigation or feed into a talking point used to criticize the investigation.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
4/ The way the referral was made is consistent with that intent. Criminal referrals are meant to provide information to the FBI that it doesn’t otherwise have, not to produce press coverage. /end
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
How Trump Tower Statement Could Constitute Obstruction of Justice
In this thread, Mariotti discusses two potential ways in which President Trump’s reported drafting of Donald Trump Jr.’s statement on his Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer could constitute obstruction of justice. If Trump knew the truth about the meeting and wanted to hide it, or wanted to shape his son’s testimony in the context of the Mueller investigation, those two facts alongside a pattern of other similar behavior could give rise to an inference of corrupt intent.
1/ Answer: In and of itself, lying to the public is generally not obstruction of justice. In this case, if Trump dictated a false statement about the Trump Tower meeting, it suggests he was highly motivated to hide the truth about the meeting. https://t.co/RCdeGXiVqW
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
2/ That helps Mueller’s existing obstruction investigation, which centers around the firing of @Comey. It also could suggest that he was trying to influence his son’s testimony about the meeting, which could itself be obstruction of justice.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
3/ I discussed this at more length back in August in this piece in @thehill. https://t.co/HsR5WkDW0F /end
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
Revelations in Michael Schmidt’s Times Article Aid Mueller Investigation
Here, Mariotti writes that the revelations in a New York Times article by Michael S. Schmidt definitely aid the Mueller investigation. First, the reported fact that President Trump attempted to convince Attorney General Jeff Sessions not to recuse himself from the Russia investigation could serve as evidence of his mental intent: to stop or impede the investigation. Mueller could then argue that Trump had the same intent when he fired former FBI Director James Comey.
Mariotti notes that Trump’s conversations with McGahn are not privileged, and thus could be used as the basis for Mueller to question McGahn about this issue. He adds that even if Trump could plausibly argue that he did not understand the legal meaning of recusal, McGahn certainly would have known.
Note that under DC Circuit procedural rules, Trump probably would not be able to claim attorney-client privilege over these conversations, in part because they do not relate to legal advice. At the same time, Trump may try to claim executive privilege over those conversations, which would be subject to a court reviewing evidence of each conversation in camera for grand jury need and responsible court management, in line with U.S. v. Nixon 418 U.S. 683 (1974). (Special thanks to Just Security Founding Editor Andy Wright for these points.)
By contrast, Mariotti says that it is highly unusual that another Trump lawyer, Uttam Dhillon, reportedly withheld information from Trump about whether he could fire FBI Director Comey without cause. That report raises questions about the legal ethical duty of candor that all lawyers have to their clients. In this case, Dhillon’s client would be the institution of the Presidency as represented by Trump. In Mariotti’s view, this report suggests Dhillon was deeply concerned about the impact that firing Comey would have on Trump’s presidency. Mariotti notes that Mueller could interview Dhillon as a witness regarding those concerns, which could be very important.
Finally, Mariotti notes that the first sentence in Trump’s original draft letter justifying the Comey firing focused on the Russia investigation, and that a Sessions aide looked for political dirt on Comey right after the firing.
THREAD: Do the revelations in today’s @nytimes article, including Trump’s order to his White House Counsel to stop Jeff Sessions from recusing himself, aid Mueller’s investigation of obstruction of justice? (Short answer: Definitely.)
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
>
1/ Today @nytmike of @nytimes published this article discussing Trump’s efforts to stop Jeff Sessions from recusing himself from the Russia investigation and how his decision to fire @Comey came about. https://t.co/J7l2ZKOdOE
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
2/ The article indicates that at Trump’s orders, White House Counsel Don McGahn tried to convince Sessions not to recuse himself. This is very unusual. Lawyers recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest or an appearance that they couldn’t be fair.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
3/ Why did Trump care so much about whether Sessions recused himself? According to the article, Trump said that he wanted Sessions to “safeguard” him, as he believed other Attorney Generals had done.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
4/ This is really important because Mueller is investigating whether Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey with “corrupt” intent. In other words, by acting with the intent to unlawfully impede the investigation.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
5/ To prove someone’s intent, prosecutors often ask jurors to make inferences from what the person said or did because we don’t have a magical telescope that can look inside their brain.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
6/ Trump’s statements about Sessions’ recusal can raise an inference that Trump wanted Sessions to impede or stop the Russia investigation. Mueller could argue that this suggests that Trump had the same intent when he fired Comey.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
7/ None of Trump’s conversations with McGahn are privileged, and I expect Mueller asked him tough questions about why he followed Trump’s order. Even if Trump could argue that he didn’t understand recusal, McGahn certainly did and knew that Trump’s request was unethical.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
8/ McGahn’s actions are in stark contrast with another White House lawyer, Uttam Dhillon, who withheld information from Trump about whether he could fire Comey in an attempt to prevent him from doing so. As the article notes, that is highly unusual.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
9/ It is unethical for a lawyer not to counsel a client regarding his legal options or to mislead a client about his options. Dhillon’s decision to do so in this instance suggests he was deeply concerned about Trump’s desire to fire Comey.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
10/ Dhillon could testify about his concern, and more importantly, about the facts that prompted his concern. The article doesn’t fully discuss what Dhillon saw and heard, but Mueller could ask him. Dhillon’s testimony could be very important.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
11/ It’s worth noting that if Dhillon thought Trump was obstructing justice, the proper course for him to take would have been to inform Trump that firing Comey could be a crime.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
12/ Today’s article also notes that the first sentence of the original letter firing Comey, which Trump asked Stephen Miller to write, mentioned Trump’s claim that the Russia investigation was “fabricated and politically motivated.”
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
13/ That also suggests that the Russia investigation was Trump’s motivation for the firing, which he famously admitted to Lester Holt in an interview after initially claiming otherwise.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
14/ The Times article also notes that after Comey’s firing, a Sessions aide looked for dirt on Comey, which the Justice Department now denies. That is interesting because it could show Sessions’ involvement in an attempt to discredit a witness against Trump.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
15/ That would be highly improper, given that Sessions is the head of the agency conducting the investigation and recused himself from the investigation.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
16/ Overall, the main conclusion to draw from this article is that the Trump’s statements to McGahn strengthen the obstruction case against Trump, and Dhillon could be an important witness for Mueller. /end
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 5, 2018
Potential Role of Fire and Fury in the Mueller Investigation
In this thread, Mariotti analyzes the potential usefulness of Michael Wolff’s book for the Mueller investigation. Investigators are more likely to find facts that could serve as leads to obtaining admissible evidence useful than the salacious opinions offered in the book. For example, if there is a recounting of events by one of the people in the book that contradicts testimony by a witness that the investigation has interviewed, that could lead the investigators to investigate the disparity and arrive at the truth, or to discount the witness’ testimony for lack of reliability.
Mariotti cites a Jennifer Rubin opinion piece in the Washington Post that points to factual developments that are likely to be of particular interest to the Mueller investigation. In particular, the book reports that Trump personally drafted the misleading initial statement that Donald Trump Jr. released to the media about his meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in June 2016. Similar reports in the Washington Post and others have indicated that Trump personally dictated the letter while aboard Air Force One on July 8. If true, those reports suggest that Trump obstructed justice by trying to conceal the truth (that the meeting was about obtaining damaging information against the Clinton campaign) about a potentially incriminating meeting. Similarly, Axios reports about Wolff’s book that:
“Mark Corallo [spokesman for Trump’s personal legal team] … privately confiding [to Wolff] that he believed the meeting on Air Force One represented a likely obstruction of justice — quit.”
1/ This is a good summary by @JRubinBlogger about how Wolff’s book can be helpful to Mueller. As she makes clear in the piece, what’s important to Mueller aren’t the opinions that Trump associates have—it’s the facts they know that led them to form those opinions. https://t.co/F1X1r37tDZ
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 4, 2018
2/ It’s important to put all of this in context, which she tries to do. The opinions of Trump associates aren’t evidence. Mueller will just use their statements to Wolff to find leads that will help him obtain admissible evidence.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 4, 2018
3/ What’s most likely is that less salacious tidbits of information that Wolff learned will be important to Mueller. If a Trump aide told Mueller something different than they told Wolff, that could create liability for them.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 4, 2018
4/ Federal prosecutors like Mueller and his team don’t interview people without FBI agents present, and lying to the FBI is a crime, as Flynn and Papadopoulos know well. /end
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 4, 2018
Manafort Files Civil Lawsuit Against Rosenstein, Mueller, DOJ
In this thread, Mariotti notes the unusual nature of Paul Manafort filing a separate, civil lawsuit against Rosenstein, Mueller, and the Department of Justice. Typically, a plaintiff claiming that an indictment was issued unlawfully would make a motion to dismiss the indictment in the criminal trial in which the indictment was issued.
Mariotti believes that the suit has almost no chance of success, and that even if it were to succeed, another federal prosecutor could charge the same crimes against Manafort. His decision to file a separate civil suit likely reflects reflects a desire to gain media exposure while not putting himself at risk of upsetting the judge who will ultimately decide Manafort’s case. Interested readers may want to read Mariotti’s full take on Just Security: “Paul Manafort’s Latest Publicity Stunt.”
As Steve Vladeck notes, the civil lawsuit is likely to fail on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, Younger v. Harris 401 U.S. 37 (1971) holds that a federal court cannot enjoin an ongoing state criminal prosecution without a “showing of bad faith, harassment, or any other unusual circumstance . . . where the danger of irreparable loss is both great and immediate.” In other words, the party seeking a federal injunction against a state court criminal prosecution has to show that the state court prosecution was undergone in bad faith or as harassment — for example, if the government knows a defendant is innocent but continues to charge him, as in Dombrowski v. Pfister 380 U.S. 479 (1965).
Moreover, that holding is part of a broader principle called equitable restraint, holding that collateral attacks on ongoing criminal proceedings are precluded, unless the plaintiff can show there is no adequate legal remedy available in the criminal trial. And that principle applies with equal force to federal criminal proceedings. Manafort, however, writes nothing in his initial complaint about the inadequacy of the legal remedies available to him in his criminal trial. Indeed, that would be the most appropriate place to bring a motion to dismiss the indictment.
Marty Lederman points out further that Manafort’s argument that Special Counsel Mueller went beyond the terms of the Special Counsel statute in charging him with crimes that occurred prior to the Trump campaign has a fatal flaw. Rosenstein acted under the statutory authority by which Congress vested in the Attorney General the power to conduct any legal proceeding that U.S. attorneys are authorized by law to conduct. That authority extends to the acting Attorney General upon delegation from the AG, which applies to Rosenstein in this case because of Sessions’ recusal, and to any attorney appointed by him, which applies to Mueller. The text of Mueller’s appointment letter states Rosenstein is appointing him:
[b]y virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice.
Lederman notes that Rosenstein likely did so because the Special Counsel regulations allow the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into criminal matters, whereas the Trump-Russia investigation is a counterintelligence matter, and thus more appropriately under the purview of the AG authority statutes passed by Congress.
THREAD: What should we make of Manafort’s lawsuit against Mueller, Rosenstein, and the Department of Justice? https://t.co/kwPYg5pH3u
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 3, 2018
1/ As the link above states, today Paul Manafort sued the Justice Department, Mueller, and Rosenstein, claiming that Mueller acted outside his authority by indicting him.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 3, 2018
2/ This is an extremely unusual move. If an indictment can be challenged legally, typically the defendant files a motion to dismiss the indictment as part of the criminal case.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 3, 2018
3/ It’s hard to see why Manafort chose to file this civil lawsuit instead of filing a motion in the criminal case. My initial reaction is that he wants to gain additional media exposure without putting this in front of the judge who would ultimately sentence him if convicted.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 3, 2018
4/ This suit has almost no chance of success. Even if it succeeded, another federal prosecutor could indict Manafort for the same crimes, so it’s a pointless suit. He’s counting on the public (or conservative allies) to take this publicity stunt seriously. Don’t. /end
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 3, 2018
Bannon: Trump Campaign Should Have Consulted FBI Over Russia Meetings
Here, Mariotti analyzes two alleged Bannon statements quoted in Michael Wolff’s book. The quotes suggest that Trump campaign officials should have consulted the FBI over Trump Jr.’s June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower. They also suggest that Kushner, Manafort, and Trump Jr. should have brought legal counsel into the meeting. Mariotti adds, however, that the reason why Bannon continues to insist the Russia investigation is a hoax in spite of these alleged statements is: politics.
1/ Former Trump strategist Steve Bannon on the Trump Tower meeting with Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort: “Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 3, 2018
2/ Another quote from Bannon: “The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor – with no lawyers. They didn’t have any lawyers.” https://t.co/h33DmmFSIR
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 3, 2018
3/ Bannon’s obviously right that Kushner, Trump Jr., and Manafort were not only foolish but had the intent to receive aid from a foreign adversary. Australians reportedly had the good sense to tell the FBI about the Russian overtures but they didn’t.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 3, 2018
4/ Regardless of whether Mueller ultimately brings charges, their actions are seriously disturbing and should be treated as such. Why, then, has Bannon more recently called the Russia investigation a hoax?
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 3, 2018
5/ For the same reason Trump and his allies have done so—politics. Journalists shouldn’t lose sight of that as the drumbeat of attacks against Mueller and the FBI grows. /end
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 3, 2018
Founders of Research Firm Behind Steele Dossier Correct the Public Record
Mariotti discusses the recent New York Times op-ed authored by the founders of Fusion GPS, the firm behind the Steele dossier. In it, they defend the integrity of their research, as well as discuss information contained in their research that is relevant to the Trump Russia investigation, but which congressional investigators have failed to follow up on.
In Mariotti’s view, this information, and the Steele dossier itself, are not particularly relevant because they cannot be admitted as evidence in trial. Rather, what matters is the evidence that the Mueller investigation is able to obtain, and whether that evidence proves crimes were committed beyond a reasonable doubt, or that implicates the counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Thus, Mariotti believes the focus by Republican congressmen and Trump’s support base on the Steele dossier is a distraction from the Russia investigation.
1/ Today the founders of the firm that created the now famous Trump dossier publicly corrected the record after several false claims were made about the dossier by Trump and GOP Congressmen. It’s an interesting read. https://t.co/IaslcLjhJZ
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 3, 2018
2/ That said, none of this changes the legal case being built by Mueller. It never really mattered who created the dossier or why, because the dossier wouldn’t be evidence at a trial. What matters is what the evidence is and what crimes can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 3, 2018
3/ Talk about the dossier has always been a distraction used by Trump and his allies to try to discredit Mueller’s investigation. It was always a sideshow that only mattered because Trump’s base (and Republican Congressmen) paid attention to it. /end
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 3, 2018
Revelations About George Papadopoulos in the New York Times
Here, Mariotti analyzes a recent New York Times articles reporting that emails show Trump campaign aide George Papapdopoulos continued to try to arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin even after Jeff Sessions ordered him not to do so. In his view, the Trump legal team may claim that in this instance as in others, Papadopoulos acted without campaign authorization. But those comparisons may fail, he believes, because of the difference between acting against explicit orders and acting without orders. He concludes that Times‘ account makes it more difficult for the Trump team to insist that Papadopoulos was a low-level volunteer.
1/ The most important revelation in today’s @nytimes article is that emails show that Papadopoulos continued to pursue arranging a meeting with Russia, despite Jeff Sessions’ recent statements that he told Papadopoulos not to do so. https://t.co/0Wh9PiaZDh?amp=1
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) December 30, 2017
2/ The Trump team will likely point to other instances where Papadopoulos acted without authorization, such as his comments to The Times of London, discussed later in the @nytimes piece. But there is a difference between disobeying orders and merely acting without them.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) December 30, 2017
3/ Overall, the picture painted by the @nytimes suggests that it will be hard for the Trump team to continue to portray Papadopoulos as a low-level volunteer who had limited access. But given that he’s on Mueller’s team, they will continue to do so. /end
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) December 30, 2017
The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor’s long-expected request to open an investigation of U.S. armed forces and the CIA for crimes allegedly committed in Afghanistan will likely be approved and – although far from certain – it remains a possibility that U.S. officials could ultimately be indicted by the Court.
On November 20th, ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda requested the that the court’s pre-trial chamber authorize an investigation into the situation in Afghanistan. Besides crimes allegedly committed by the Taliban and Afghan security forces, the prosecutor says she wants to investigate ill-treatment of detainees by U.S. armed forces and the CIA. Since this presents the first time the court would be investigating a major western power, there is considerable uncertainty and speculation concerning how this process will unfold.
However, taking into account a number of legal and policy issues, it is entirely possible that U.S. officials could be indicted.
The ICC’s rationale
First off, Bensouda’s move should be seen through the lens of a calculated gamble that could dramatically increase the court’s status as a powerful international institution.
Bensouda must be aware that indicting U.S. officials would bring the ICC into a head-on confrontation with the U.S. that will prove difficult for the court to manage. However, the prosecutor also knows this will be seen as a major boost to the court’s legitimacy among key audiences, in particular the human rights community and State Parties skeptical towards the court’s tendency to focus on less powerful players. While a potential investigation in Afghanistan could undermine the ICC’s effectiveness as a criminal court in so far as indictments do not lead to trials, its relevance and reputation as an international organization could ultimately be enhanced, as others have argued.
Importantly, the Afghanistan investigation request comes amid the most serious crisis of the office of the prosecutor to date. This crisis – involving, among other allegations, accusations of undue contact between prosecutors and Western diplomats and a willingness to ‘let go’ of politically sensitive cases – mainly relates to the conduct of the previous chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo. Yet, it could be a factor influencing how the office would like to proceed in this situation, in part because prosecutors may be keener than ever to demonstrate their independence and willingness to proceed against powerful players.
Gravity
In this particular case, Bensouda is relying on the so-called ‘proprio motu’ powers in the ICC Statute, which allows her to pursue an investigation in the absence of a referral by a State Party or the UN Security Council. To make this happen, the pre-trial chamber would need to determine that there is a ‘reasonable basis’ to proceed with an investigation.
One key issue in this regard is whether the chamber will find that the so-called ‘gravity’ requirement in the statute is satisfied. That is, are the alleged crimes serious enough to warrant an investigation by the court?
For now, Bensouda has submitted evidence relating to torture and other forms of ill-treatment by the U.S. military and CIA against 54 and 24 detainees, respectively. This is a relatively small number of incidents for a case appearing before the ICC, and something that the chamber will likely take into account when weighing the gravity of the crimes.
However, the ‘reasonable basis’ threshold for authorizing an investigation is low, and other factors, such as the manner in which the alleged crimes were committed and their impact on victims, are likely to pull the chamber towards a conclusion that the gravity threshold should be seen as satisfied at this stage.
Complementarity
The ICC is popularly known as a court of ‘last resort’. This refers to the so-called complementarity regime of the ICC whereby a case is inadmissible if it is – or has already been – investigated or prosecuted by a state which has jurisdiction over it “unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution.”
In her request for an investigation, Bensouda submitted that “it is apparent that either no national investigations or prosecutions have been conducted or are ongoing against the persons or groups of persons” covered by the request, “or the information available is insufficient to identify the contours of any relevant national proceedings.”
At this stage, the pre-trial chamber is likely to agree with these observations, meaning that the principle of complementarity won’t bar the ICC from moving forward. It is possible however that the assessment of national proceedings in the U.S. could change in the course of an investigation, something that could potentially lead to a termination of the aspects of the investigation relating to U.S. armed force and the CIA.
This could happen if the U.S. opens new criminal investigations covering the alleged crimes in Afghanistan. But as David Bosco argues, “the chances of the Trump administration (or, in truth, any U.S. administration) launching additional domestic investigations and prosecutions are remote.”
In theory, the U.S. could also formally challenge admissibility of the cases presented by Bensouda on the basis that past investigations and prosecutions in the U.S. covered the same crimes. However, because the U.S. disputes the ICC’s jurisdiction over U.S. citizens, the administration is unlikely to seriously consider formally engaging the legal process.
And as Stephen Pomper recently argued on this site, the U.S. could also try negate the need for further ICC involvement by informally submitting information concerning the nature and scope if its own past investigations into the cases Bensouda is pursuing, in an attempt to show that these were genuine proceedings covering the persons responsible for the crimes.
Yet even if the U.S. provides the court with information relating to these past proceedings, it is far from certain this will lead to a termination of the investigation. One key challenge for the U.S. is that the ICC is primarily interested in seeing national proceedings being conducted covering the persons most responsible for the alleged crimes – and these proceedings need to be criminal in nature. As the prosecutor noted in her request, no (publically available) information suggests that criminal investigation or prosecution ever occurred in the U.S. with respect to officials who devised, authorized or bore oversight responsibility for the crimes committed.
Unless the U.S. commences fresh criminal investigations targeting senior decision-makers, the ICC is therefore likely to maintain that complementarity does not present an obstacle for moving ahead.
Evidence
When some commentators believe it is rather unlikely that the ICC would ever indict any U.S. government officials it is in part because it will be difficult to develop the necessary evidence in the absence of cooperation by the U.S. and other key states such as Afghanistan. Whereas it is true that it will be difficult – if not impossible – to interview many key witnesses in the absence of such cooperation, it is equally true that important evidence, such as documents pointing to the authorization of enhanced interrogation techniques, is publically available. As the prosecutor notes, a U.S. Senate Committee found that “senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees.” This presents a unique opportunity for Bensouda to use the novel approach of building a case mainly on the basis of documentary evidence.
Likely targets of an ICC investigation
Should the ICC proceed to a full investigation, who then are the most likely targets? In her request, the prosecutor hinted that she may be particularly interested in pursuing persons associated with the CIA.
For one, she intimates that she views the crimes committed by the CIA as both more serious and systematic compared to crimes committed by U.S. armed forces. The prosecutor notes that the treatment of CIA detainees “appears to have been particularly grave on a qualitative assessment.” She further emphasizes that “compared to the localised approval of certain interrogation techniques within the US military command structure in Afghanistan, the CIA’s use of the interrogation techniques . . . was authorised as official policy.”
Another key reason why the prosecutor may be likely to focus primarily on the CIA has to do with the Obama administration’s policy decision not to prosecute CIA officers. As noted in the prosecutor’s request, whereas some investigations and prosecutions have taken place in situations where CIA detainees died, a decision was made by the DOJ not to prosecute “any person who acted in good faith within the scope of the legal guidance given by the OLC regarding the [CIA’s] interrogation of detainees.”
Importantly, the prosecutor asserts that the OLC’s legal advice amounts to criminal conduct under the ICC Statute, noting that the scope of authorization provided by the legal opinions “breached the applicable prohibitions under the Rome Statute and international law more generally against torture, cruel treatment and outrages against upon personal dignity.”
Ramifications for the US
So far, U.S. reactions to the ICC prosecutor’s move have been measured (some would say surprisingly restrained given Trump’s habits), mainly relying on standard objections to the ICC claiming jurisdiction over U.S. citizens. This could change if an official investigation is opened – and it most certainly would if senior U.S. officials are indicted.
Although it seems unlikely that any U.S. citizen will ever stand trial at the ICC, the potential issuing of arrest warrants would create some trouble for the U.S. Should arrest warrants be issued, member states to the ICC – involving more than 120 states, some of which (including Japan, the United Kingdom and other European states) are among the U.S.’ closest allies – would be legally compelled to enforce the arrest warrants, even if they target current or former government officials. While U.S. pressure would likely result in these states putting their legal obligations aside, such a situation would nonetheless create significant diplomatic and legal trouble for the U.S. and its allies. ICC indictments, especially if met by U.S. non-cooperation, would also seriously compromise the U.S.’ already threatened position as an advocate of international justice and the rule of law abroad.