President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Michael_ Gee · Apr 24, 2018

lcjjdnh said: ↑

First, the Supreme Court--in a unanimous decision--held that the federal bribery statute is narrower than you seem to think it is.

Second, the Hatch Act is not a criminal statute.
Click to expand...

The O'Donnell decision is not related to pay for play. That's still illegal. It's not covered by bribery, but by extortion. Hatch Act violations are still against the law.

outofplace · Apr 24, 2018

QYFW said: ↑

Our politics may be irrevocably broken, but we'll always have oop.
Click to expand...

And we'll always have some version of you. A partisan hack and his broad brush by any other name would smell just as...

JC · Apr 24, 2018

outofplace said: ↑

And we'll always have some version of you. A partisan hack and his broad brush by any other name would smell just as...
Click to expand...

Yet, you seem to bring all the partisan hacks together. You should win the SJ Peace Prize.

lcjjdnh · Apr 24, 2018

Michael_ Gee said: ↑

The O'Donnell decision is not related to pay for play. That's still illegal. It's not covered by bribery, but by extortion.
Click to expand...

You have a cite for that? In interpreting the Hobbs Act extortion provision, Evans v. United States says that: "We hold today that the Government need only show that a public official has obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that the payment was made in return for official acts." And in the McDonnell (not O'Donnell) case, the "parties also agreed that obtaining a 'thing of value . . . knowing that the thing of value was given in return for official action' was an element of Hobbs Act extortion, and that they would use the definition of 'official act' found in the federal bribery statute to define 'official action' under the Hobbs Act."

TheSportsPredictor · Apr 24, 2018

Any ideas as to why this woman wasn't thrown to the ground and handcuffed?

Port Authority ethics official cursed cop, demanded he call her ‘Commissioner’

doctorquant · Apr 24, 2018

lcjjdnh said: ↑

You have a cite for that? In interpreting the Hobbs Act extortion provision, Evans v. United States says that: "We hold today that the Government need only show that a public official has obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that the payment was made in return for official acts." And in the McDonnell (not O'Donnell) case, the "parties also agreed that obtaining a 'thing of value . . . knowing that the thing of value was given in return for official action' was an element of Hobbs Act extortion, and that they would use the definition of 'official act' found in the federal bribery statute to define 'official action' under the Hobbs Act."
Click to expand...

Details, schmetails ...

Michael_ Gee · Apr 24, 2018

lcjjdnh said: ↑

You have a cite for that? In interpreting the Hobbs Act extortion provision, Evans v. United States says that: "We hold today that the Government need only show that a public official has obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that the payment was made in return for official acts." And in the McDonnell (not O'Donnell) case, the "parties also agreed that obtaining a 'thing of value . . . knowing that the thing of value was given in return for official action' was an element of Hobbs Act extortion, and that they would use the definition of 'official act' found in the federal bribery statute to define 'official action' under the Hobbs Act."
Click to expand...

Access to an elected official is of course an official act. Denying said access is an official act. If you are demanding payment to meet with citizens, that's extortion. The Supreme Court ruling, and I admit it was unanimous, in O'Donnell was an atrocity. It won't belong before we find out a Justice took bribes. Ten years at the latest.

doctorquant · Apr 24, 2018

Michael_ Gee said: ↑

Access to an elected official is of course an official act. Denying said access is an official act. If you are demanding payment to meet with citizens, that's extortion.
Click to expand...

Jesus, Gee ... During my oral comps this one examiner (Fred) kept pestering me over this one point. I was right, he was wrong. Finally, after he’d kept on, and on, and on ... one of the senior examiners said, “Goddamn, Fred, how many fucking times does this guy have to tell you you’re wrong before it sinks in?”

So I’m going to ask you ...

lcjjdnh · Apr 24, 2018

Michael_ Gee said: ↑

Access to an elected official is of course an official act. Denying said access is an official act. If you are demanding payment to meet with citizens, that's extortion.
Click to expand...

Umm...no. Try again.

In sum, an “official act” is a decision or action on a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy.” The “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or contro- versy” must involve a formal exercise of governmental power that is similar in nature to a lawsuit before a court, a determination before an agency, or a hearing before a committee. It must also be something specific and focused that is “pending” or “may by law be brought” before a public official. To qualify as an “official act,” the public official must make a decision or take an action on that “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,” or agree to do so. That decision or action may include using his official position to exert pressure on another official to perform an “official act,” or to advise another official, knowing or intending that such advice will form the basis for an “official act” by another official. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event (or agreeing to do so)—without more—does not fit
that definition of “official act.”
Click to expand...

In addition to being inconsistent with both text and precedent, the Government’s expansive interpretation of “official act” would raise significant constitutional con- cerns. Section 201 prohibits quid pro quo corruption—the exchange of a thing of value for an “official act.” In the Government’s view, nearly anything a public official ac- cepts—from a campaign contribution to lunch—counts as a quid; and nearly anything a public official does—from arranging a meeting to inviting a guest to an event— counts as a quo. See Brief for United States 14, 27; Tr. of Oral Arg. 34–35, 44–46.

But conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf, and include them in events all the time. The basic compact underlying representative government assumes that pub- lic officials will hear from their constituents and act ap- propriately on their concerns—whether it is the union official worried about a plant closing or the homeowners who wonder why it took five days to restore power to their neighborhood after a storm. The Government’s position could cast a pall of potential prosecution over these relationships if the union had given a campaign contribution in the past or the homeowners invited the official to join them on their annual outing to the ballgame. Officials might wonder whether they could respond to even the most commonplace requests for assistance, and citizens with legitimate concerns might shrink from participating in democratic discourse.
Click to expand...

garrow · Apr 24, 2018

doctorquant said: ↑

Jesus, Gee ... During my oral comps this one examiner (Fred) kept pestering me over this one point. I was right, he was wrong. Finally, after he’d kept on, and on, and on ... one of the senior examiners said, “Goddamn, Fred, how many fucking times does this guy have to tell you you’re wrong before it sinks in?”

So I’m going to ask you ...
Click to expand...

Fred's son is exactly the same way.

lcjjdnh · Apr 24, 2018

doctorquant said: ↑

Jesus, Gee ... During my oral comps this one examiner (Fred) kept pestering me over this one point. I was right, he was wrong. Finally, after he’d kept on, and on, and on ... one of the senior examiners said, “Goddamn, Fred, how many fucking times does this guy have to tell you you’re wrong before it sinks in?”

So I’m going to ask you ...
Click to expand...

Eh, it's just a little time in federal prison. Who cares if we get the details right?

(And I personally haven't researched this question, so I may very well be wrong--in which case I'll be happy to admit it. But not convinced by what I've seen so far.)

Michael_ Gee · Apr 24, 2018

People have gone to prison for pay to play. It is also for sure a violation of House ethics rules which could get a member expelled.

Log in or Sign up

President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

JC Well-Known Member

lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

doctorquant Well-Known Member

Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

doctorquant Well-Known Member

lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

garrow Well-Known Member

lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

JC Well-Known Member

lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

doctorquant Well-Known Member

Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

doctorquant Well-Known Member

lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

garrow Well-Known Member

lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches