Too late to edit:
Please note that the “(which they will never be)” section was added to the quote by Donald Trump, which means it couldn’t have been a case of accidently posting the wrong quote.
Thanks, but that’s a second-hand quote, and figurative. There’s enough real shit to worry about here.
While it may be possible to make a reasonable legal argument that such an offer was a violation of 18 USC 201, it in no way would be anything close to a “textbook” violation. A textbook case would involve the “anything of value” being much more tangible than getting a political policy goal accomplished. And the sorts of legal issues raised with those particular facts are nowhere near as clear cut as when it involves for example, a suitcase full of cash.
Of course you could have meant this would be “textbook” as in such a case would delve into new legal territory, set an important precedent, and start appearing in legal textbooks as a new and important development in this area of jurisprudence. But I don’t think you did.
It requires a bad lawyer to argue that a pardon has no value. Rudy should get right on this.
I was reading an LA Times reporter “This Is The Third Impeachment I’ve Covered”. He mentioned that one of Nixon’s crimes mentioned in the articles of impeachment was using the IRS and the FBI to investigate political opponents. I guess Nixon did not use the State Department, Justice Department, or the threat of withholding foreign aid.
To be clear, my question is not about impeachment. As you say, impeachment is a political process; not a criminal one. I’m not seeking to discover what ‘high crimes and misdemeanours’ that Trump may be charged with; rather, I’d like to know which actual, statutory crimes he is accused of committing. As you say, there are many accusations of violations of statutory laws; but few of the people making the accusations seem to point to the statutes.
It’s important to distinguish between “high crimes and misdemeanors” that would support removal by impeachment and crimes that would support criminal prosecution. This is discussed in a 1974 House report, https://ia801902.us.archive.org/14/items/constitutional_grounds_for_presidential_impeachment_-_house_judiciary_comm_staff_report_february_1974/constitutional_grounds_for_presidential_impeachment_-_house_judiciary_comm_staff_report_february_1974.pdf. Generally speaking, a failure to fulfill the requirements of office would support impeachment, though it would not necessarily be a crime. Conversely, crimes that occurred prior to taking office and unrelated to the campaign for office might not support impeachment, though they would be prosecutable if the statute of limitations has not expired.
I think the clearest case of a prosecutable crime (though it might not support impeachment) is the misrepresentations that were made in connection with Trump University. While this kind of garden variety fraud typically results in civil rather than criminal charges (as indeed was the case here), it certainly would support a charge of wire fraud.
The alleged misrepresentations in connection with the value of Trump’s father’s estate probably would support a charge of tax fraud, although I believe that the limitations period has run.
I’m not sure that there is actually a criminal statute implementing the emoluments clauses of the Constitution, although I haven’t researched this.
Gosh that’s a real comprehensive legal analysis you’ve done there. And if the question of whether pardons have value was the only relevant legal issue in such a case you might have some sort of point. But that wouldn’t even be close to being true here so you really don’t. Unsurprisingly it would be rather complicated with multiple issues and once again pretty far from the “textbook case” you described. In fact, the only person who would describe it that way is someone who has never, ever opened that particular textbook.
For the Ukraine accusations, bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2), and gratuity 18 U.S.C. § 201©. Both based on seeking a thing of value in exchange for performing an official act. Note, gratuity does not require an express quid pro quo, and it is a lesser included offense of bribery.
I think Professor Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law might have written the book you’re talking about.
You seem to repeatedly miss the point and are trying instead to refute a point I never made. Whatever legal conclusions are ultimately reached about either the wall/pardons issue or the Ukraine call, neither one by any stretch of the imagination amounts to a “textbook case” of a violation of 18 USC 201. Both sets of facts, whatever they are, by all appearances amount to a unique set of facts combined with potentially novel legal questions of first impression. So I could list numerous ways that those cases would be atypical and thus be really, really, far from any reasonable definition of “textbook.”
So you post a tweet from Professor Tribe that says Trump’s actions amounted to bribery. Wow. A tweet. Not much of a legal argument there is there? So what exactly are you trying to cite here? Do you even remember where the very first thing I stated was that it might be possible to make a reasonable argument to that effect? Now Professor Tribe doesn’t make such an argument in your cite but that’s ok. It’s a tweet and I’m sure he could come up with more. But he also doesn’t at any point characterize it as a “textbook” bribery case does he? Just because his conclusion is that Trump broke that particular law that in no way logically implies that he did so in the most obvious, incontrovertible, straightforward and typical manner i.e. “textbook.”