Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Trump doesn’t think Mueller should look into his business transactions. Too late.

According to a new report, investigators are already looking into several Trump business transactions with Russians.

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty
Andrew Prokop
Andrew Prokop is a senior politics correspondent at Vox, covering the White House, elections, and political scandals and investigations. He’s worked at Vox since the site’s launch in 2014, and before that, he worked as a research assistant at the New Yorker’s Washington, DC, bureau.

Just yesterday, President Donald Trump told a trio of New York Times reporters that if special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation turned to his finances, he’d view it as a “violation” of Mueller’s charge. “This is about Russia,” Trump said.

But according to a new report by Bloomberg’s Greg Farrell and Christian Berthelsen, investigators had already been investigating several Trump business transactions with Russians.

The Bloomberg reporters quote “a person familiar with the probe” as confirming that several transactions in particular have piqued investigators’ interest, including:

  • The 2013 Miss Universe pageant, which was held in Moscow
  • A Trump business deal with Russian associates for a condo development in SoHo
  • Trump’s sale of a Florida estate to a wealthy Russian back in 2008

Importantly, this has been in the works for a while — the Bloomberg report said it spiraled out of an old investigation into money laundering by former US Attorney Preet Bharara (whom Trump fired in March). Trump’s interview with the Times had nothing to do with it.

But the news of this aspect of the investigation has only added to speculation in Washington that Trump could fire Mueller — an action that, if carried out, would mean a crisis over the rule of law in the United States.

And John Dowd, one of Trump’s lawyers, complained to Bloomberg that “those transactions are in my view well beyond the mandate of the special counsel.”

Trump’s statement about Mueller, in context

Trump’s statements to the Times about Mueller didn’t seem intended as a preplanned threat, but rather as something the president sort of stumbled into.

But though it may have been unplanned, it is of a piece with Trump’s repeated attempts to delegitimize the investigation, and his general lack of respect for the rule of law.

The question, and the framing of it, was brought up by Times reporters Michael Schmidt and Maggie Haberman at the very end of the very long interview, and Trump’s supposed threats were interspersed with long digressions on other matters:

SCHMIDT: Last thing, if Mueller was looking at your finances and your family finances, unrelated to Russia — is that a red line?

HABERMAN: Would that be a breach of what his actual charge is?

TRUMP: I would say yeah. I would say yes.

Trump then followed up with a rambling denial that he had any significant business interests in Russia, and the reporters followed up:

SCHMIDT: But if he was outside that lane, would that mean he’d have to go?

HABERMAN: Would you consider —

TRUMP: No, I think that’s a violation. Look, this is about Russia. So I think if he wants to go, my finances are extremely good, my company is an unbelievably successful company.

Trump followed this up with another disjointed tangent about how good his company is and again how he doesn’t do much business in Russia. Then the Times pushed one more time:

HABERMAN: Would you fire Mueller if he went outside of certain parameters of what his charge is?

SCHMIDT: What would you do?

TRUMP: I can’t, I can’t answer that question because I don’t think it’s going to happen.

Apparently, it has happened. And now Trump will decide what to do next.

See More:

More in Politics

Podcasts
The Supreme Court abortion pills case, explainedThe Supreme Court abortion pills case, explained
Podcast
Podcasts

How Louisiana brought mifepristone back to SCOTUS.

By Peter Balonon-Rosen and Sean Rameswaram
Politics
Trump’s China policy is nearly the exact opposite of what everyone expectedTrump’s China policy is nearly the exact opposite of what everyone expected
Politics

As Trump heads to China, attention and resources are being shifted from Asia to yet another war in the Middle East.

By Joshua Keating
Politics
Are far-right politics just the new normal?Are far-right politics just the new normal?
Politics

Liberals are preparing for a longer war with right-wing populists than they once expected.

By Zack Beauchamp
The Logoff
Flavored vapes doomed Trump’s FDA headFlavored vapes doomed Trump’s FDA head
The Logoff

Why Marty Makary is out at the FDA, briefly explained.

By Cameron Peters
Politics
Virginia Democrats’ irresponsible new plan to save their gerrymanderVirginia Democrats’ irresponsible new plan to save their gerrymander
Politics

Democrats just handed the Supreme Court’s Republicans a loaded weapon.

By Ian Millhiser
The Logoff
Can Trump lower gas prices?Can Trump lower gas prices?
The Logoff

What suspending the gas tax would mean for you, briefly explained.

By Cameron Peters