Trump Is Committing 'Felony Bribery' by Giving Fundraising Cash to GOP Senators Ahead of Impeachment Trial: Ex-Bush Ethics Lawyer Trump’s reelection campaign contacted its long email list of donors to ask for contribution that would be divvied up between him and senators Cory Gardner, Joni Ernst, and Tom Tillis, vulnerable GOP facing re-election in 2020 The message, on Republican fundraising platform Winred, reads: “If we don’t post strong fundraising numbers, we won’t be able to defend the president from the baseless Impeachment WITCH HUNT!” Trump is also set to attend and support fundraising events for Republican senators seeking reelection, including a fundraising lunch for Senator David Perdue in Atlanta next week, at which those attending are asked to donate up to $100,000, according to Politico. Richard Painter, who served as George Bush’s top ethics lawyer, accused Trump of bribery. He tweeted, along with a link to the Politico story: “Any other American who offered cash to the jury before a trial would go to prison for felony bribery. But he can get away with it? ” https://www.newsweek.com/trump-comm...-gop-senators-ahead-impeachment-trial-1468946
Not quite as usual. Usually they are highlighting even more direct evidence about Trump, quid pro quo, and the crimes Trump has committed.
Jonathan Turley says the "bribery" accusation is bull shitte . . . . I paraphrase. https://jonathanturley.org/2019/11/...r-senators-without-committing-felony-bribery/ Painter: Trump Cannot Do Fundraisers For Senators Without Committing “Felony Bribery” I have previously disagreed with the overextended and unsupported claims of critics on allegedly clear criminal violations by President Donald Trump, including past statements by Richard Painter, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer for George W. Bush and is a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. I am no fan of President Trump and have repeatedly criticized him for his language and actions in office. However, legal analysis continues to erode as analysts assure viewers that well-established crimes have been committed. The latest such example by Painter is that Trump continues to fundraise for Senators, a common practice of all presidents in election years. Painter insists that any such fundraising can constitute “felony bribery” since these senators will likely sit in judgment in any impeachment trial. Painter declared “This is a bribe. Any other American who offered cash to the jury before a trial would go to prison for felony bribery. But he can get away with it?” I like Painter personally and respect his past public service. However, this position is utterly meritless. Just because a president may face a Senate trial, he is not required to stop political activities. Indeed, if that were the case, an opposing party in control of the House could shutdown the political activities of a president by moving to impeach him. Moreover, Painter’s unlimited view of the bribery statute would also prevent campaign activities deemed supportive of members of either house. That view would not only extend bribery definitions beyond recognition but it would contravene core protections for free speech and associations. The unquestioning attention given to Painter’s extreme view shows how detached coverage has become from reality. There are serious questions raised in the Ukraine controversy. It deserves serious analysis.
similar assessment and similar conclusions: The bottom line here is that Trump has displayed a level of corruption in office unparalleled by any modern President. There’s no need to manufacture offenses. In fact, doing so actually helps him because it makes it appear that his opponents are throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if anything sticks. https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/no-trumps-courting-of-senators-isnt-bribery/
Where was this ethics lawyer when Bush was doing unethical crap? Eh, I see some merit both ways. On the one hand, the president shouldn't be prevented from fundraising just because the House might consider impeachment (though once actually impeached, it'd probably be unethical to do any fundraising for any senator). And, you're not going to be able to prove that such fundraising was a bribe. On the other hand, knowing Trump, there is a quid pro quo here as well: if I help fund your re-election campaign, you must vote to acquit! But, that's probably pretty typical Washington -- if it's not a deal for an acquittal, it's a deal for legislation or some other political asset. It's more your garden-variety corruption we all grew up with.
I hate to say it but I think Turley is right. This very sleazy but probably can’t meet the criminal standard of bribery. This is where we have to remember that Impeachment isn’t a legal exercise so even if Trump is using his fundraising ability to try to influence senators that isn’t the same as jury tampering in a criminal case. Also if I remember correctly Bill Clinton continued to fundraiser during impeachment and trial. I definitely think this is an issue the public should be aware of in politically assessing impeachment but probably no legal argument.
