Ummm… I’m not a lawyer, but this seems to apply here, folks:
(Support for impeachment defense would be a “private benefit.” Gun control, or not, would be an “official act.”)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201
Edit: Add header for cited statute.
Not at all. I meant every word. I came from four immigrant grandparents who prospered who raised children who prospered, that’s one part, and next impeachment is underway because the Constitution provides for it when “high crime and misdemeanors” have been committed. We can see that they have and in full view of everyone in the country. Then there’s the First Amendment. We can write like this to each other because of it.
I know! I kind of want this to happen, just so we can have a clear, undeniable instance of Russian assistance flowing to His Orangeness. The NRA, Trump, and their shared base all deserve one another. (Plus the money won’t help. The goose is cooking. Based on the events of the last three days, the Democrats are in the driver’s seat. As long as the Dems don’t screw it up – admittedly, that’s always a very real possibility – there’s no winning strategy the NRA or Trump can pull out of their back pockets, no matter how many rubles they have to spend.)
The news going forward will be finding those who are not trying to squeeze Trump with threat of impeachment. For example: I’m trying to figure out how to use the threat of impeachment to get my house painted.
Remember when Trump supporters claimed that he was so rich he was “immune” from bribery?
the NRA providing financial support for Trump’s impeachment defense
Isn’t that very obviously criminal? What piece am I missing that explains why it’s not criminal even to just conspire to do that?
It looks to me like literal quid-pro-quo over a major national policy issue, in exchange for what will undoubtedly be the best-documented cash expenditures of our generation, every dollar of which represents problematic political contributions and “windfall” income that must be reported and taxed.
Isn’t this actually so clear-cut that it still falls inside the bounds of that recently-gutted bribery statute? And then it’s either an epic emolument (or a major series of emoluments like some kind of Spanish treasure fleet), or a campaign contribution that is so massive that if it’s not illegal, it’s only because no campaign finance law has ever contemplated contributions of its size. And then there are the tax implications, which lead pretty directly into major lawsuits headed towards SCOTUS.
Why aren’t these guys already in handcuffs? Are the local police still searching for more evidence? Is the Secret Service slow-walking the frog-march for the sake of decorum?
ETA:
The report said it was not clear whether Trump or LaPierre raised the prospect of financial support.
I’d bet dollars to donuts that the reason it’s “not clear” who raised the topic is that both guys were so eager to set up the deal that they both stammered through it at the same time immediately upon meeting. Wayne leaned forward and said, “I bet I know who’d love a blank check for his legal expenses.” And Donald replied, “I will give you your most-treasured piece of national crime and health and safety policy if you can fix this impeachment problem!”
Wayne was stunned briefly.
But then he smiled, and a moment later Donald smiled back, and they extended their hands and shook twice in perfect unison, exclaiming with one voice: “You have a deal!”
“ On September 27, the Senate Finance Committee’s Democratic staff, led by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), released a 77-page report”
Headlines have simplified this to “a senate report” which causes great confusion given the utter refusal of senate republicans to do anything like actual governance
Wyden’s pretty sharp. I haven’t finished the report but I expect it will be solid
Isn’t this the very type of bribery Susan Collins was clutching her pearls about when it came to the Kavanaugh nomination?
I realize this is how Washington works, but to see it blatantly public like this is sordid indeed.
This is exactly the problem “regular folk” are supposed to have with DC political types -that they are responsive to special interests, not the people. In this case, the overwhelming majority favor background checks among other gun control measures, but that apparently doesn’t matter to Republicans. Where’s that Tea Party when you need a cuppa?
‘Hey, I’m under investigation for subverting democracy with Russian money."
“Hey, I’m under investigation for subverting democracy with Russian money too!”
“Are you financially flailing now that you’re no longer propped up with Russian money?”
“Well, are you financially flailing now that you’re no longer propped up with Russian money?”
“Yes, and lawyers are rilly rilly expensive!”
"I’ll say, they’re bleeding me dry - and both of us so innocent too!’
" 'S a damm shame - let’s embrace each other as our life raft drifts out to sea."
The rat says to the cockroach - “Where’d you pick your friend up? Trump plaza?”
Well, if anyone is going to walk up to 45* with tears in his eyes and say “Sir…” it would be LaPierre.
Sez WHO???
They’re pushing hard. I’m a hunter, non NRA member, and they hit me up on the phone the other day with a “Do you believe in a strong 2nd amendment” schtick.
He’s likely already used it to stay financially afloat amid his myriad bad business decisions.
It’s gone.
If true this is bribery, pure and simple.
Memo to Josh Marshall: The way news stories are breaking, don’t let the staff go home this weekend!
The bedbug quips “Stay away from the Taco Bowl at at the Trump Grill. It’s a good cleanse tho.”
Wow!
My comment was in reference to the role of the NRA as a money laundering venue for the Russians.
quid pro quo. THIS time the selling of the WH is to other Americans. Charming.