Skip to main content

U.S. Politics Mueller Report could be used against Trump campaign, over Democrat objections

A judge evaluating a lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign of conspiring with Russia to win the election said Friday that he might consider the Mueller Report despite Democrats’ objections.

Lawyers for defendants including the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, encouraged the judge to consider special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings, while a Democratic Party lawyer argued against it.

The dispute arose during arguments before U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl in Manhattan.

Story continues below advertisement

Koeltl said the Mueller Report’s findings might normally be excluded as hearsay, but there’s an exception when it concerns contents of a public investigation.

The 448-page report released in April said the investigation did not find collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The lawsuit said Trump’s campaign conspired with Russia, WikiLeaks, Trump’s son-in-law and others. Trump’s campaign denies that.

After the report was released, lawyers for the campaign asked Koeltl to penalize the Democratic National Committee for even bringing the lawsuit, saying Mueller’s findings revealed the “doomed effort to prove a falsehood.”

At the time, lawyers for the Democratic Party responded by saying Mueller’s report confirms and bolsters their claims by detailing the campaign’s repeated suspicious interactions with Russian agents, proving the campaign participated in Russia’s election interference.

But party lawyer Joseph Sellers on Friday tried to discourage Koeltl from using the report, saying it would be appropriate to note there was a report but not to consider its contents.

Trump campaign attorney Michael Carvin said it would be fine because it’s a public document with facts that would seem integral to the lawsuit.

Story continues below advertisement

Carvin said he wasn’t saying that the Mueller Report confronts “all the wild-eyed accusations,” but he said the findings make it harder to make the party’s allegations in good faith.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter