Pay-to-play in Mar-a-Lago: “House Democrats are launching an investigation into Donald Trump’s meeting with oil executives last month at his Mar-a-Lago Club, where the former president asked the executives to steer $1 billion to his 2024 campaign and promised to reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental policies,” The Post reported. This news followed an earlier report that Trump said a $1 billion donation to his campaign would be a great “deal” because he could save the oil companies far more. The Post’s original report, according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation, stated, “Trump vowed at dinner to immediately end the Biden administration’s freeze on permits for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports” and to “start auctioning off more leases for oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico” and to “reverse restrictions on drilling in the Alaskan Arctic.” If you’re thinking, Shouldn’t this be illegal? — you’re not alone. Once upon a time, a story like this would have caused an uproar and sparked criminal investigations. However, the Supreme Court has made it very tough to prosecute corruption cases. An April report from Just Security explained: |
In a series of cases decided over the past 37 years, the Supreme Court has systematically gutted the country’s public corruption laws, including by undermining the long-standing “honest services” doctrine. At its core, the honest services doctrine is an anti-corruption principle protecting the people’s right to an honest and impartial government and a fair provision of government services. Officials, in government or in other positions of authority, who misuse their positions to enrich themselves deprive the people of that right and are subject to federal wire and mail fraud charges. Taken together, these rulings formalized the idea that money moving from private hands to official pockets is not illegal in itself. According to the Supreme Court, the conduct is unlawful only when there is some tangible clear official action to which an exchange of money or property can be obviously tied.
|
Most recently, the court overturned the conviction of former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell for accepting lavish loans and gifts from a businessman in exchange for arranging important connections with state and industry leaders. The Trump incident might be even more problematic than McDonnell’s case because Trump allegedly promised concrete action on specific items, although nailing down precisely what was said and proving a quid pro quo that meets exacting legal standards could be tricky. Meanwhile, the muted reaction from the political class and public speaks to how far we have defined political deviance downward. The incident serves to underscore the casual sleaziness that is routine in Trump’s inner circle (consider the New York trial involving the payment of hush money and business falsification) — and how low many in the press have set the bar for Trump. “Drain the swamp”? You must be joking! Perhaps the Justice Department will act swiftly. Maybe the rest of the media will give the attention this deserves and register appropriate condemnation of paying to bury off Earth-saving climate change measures. But don’t bet on either. Debates are on (perhaps): Biden surprised the chattering class and the Trump campaign by publicly proposing two debates and then promptly announcing he had accepted a CNN debate for June 27 and an ABC debate for Sept. 10. What we don’t know is whether Trump will show up. By June, of course, he might already have been convicted in the New York criminal case. The Supreme Court might have already shot down his immunity claim. Moreover, after years of hiding in right-wing media, he will have to face some of the best interviewers around. Jake Tapper and Dana Bash for CNN might start off asking why he promised to release violent criminals who attacked cops on Jan. 6, 2021. They might ask why he admires Russian President Vladimir Putin, if denying women urgent health care was part of his vision for overturning Roe v. Wade and if he regrets suggesting that disinfectants such as bleach could somehow be used to kill the coronavirus inside people. Provided they have an “off” switch to keep him from interrupting, it might be a very informative event, especially without an audience present to hoot and holler. If Biden is clever, he might want to ask for a very long time for the candidates to answer questions. Does anyone think Trump can avoid going off the rails for a full two or three minutes? Biden, it seems, got exactly what he wanted — a forum to expose Trump’s unfitness.
|
|
|