Possible financial crimes
We know less about this prong than the other two. The Post reported last month that “in addition to possible coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 presidential election, investigators are also looking broadly into possible financial crimes — but the people familiar with the matter, who were not authorized to speak publicly, did not specify who or what was being examined.”
But to call a presidential abuse of power a crisis of the constitutional system is like calling a bank robbery a crisis of the financial system. It’s not. There are ways to address it.
The problem comes when the relevant actors simply won’t perform their constitutional duties because of other considerations.
The Russian government, at the behest of Russian President Vladimir Putin, waged a sustained influence operation in the United States in support of Donald Trump’s campaign for president. Major questions remain about the degree of interaction between Trump associates and Russian operatives.
Here’s what we know so far based on news reports, public statements and the U.S. government’s unclassified report on Russian election interference.
The ongoing saga has many parts, but it centers around what relationship, if any, Trump’s campaign may have had with Russia. Here’s a rundown of what issues are at play.