Keith Mack
Donald Trump's conduct has been called into question over the possibility that he broke federal bribery laws in the Ukraine scandal. The bribery law makes it a felony for any federal public official to corruptly demand or seek anything of value ... in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act. This raises the question of whether Trump's conduct violates the federal bribery and gratuities law: 18 USC Section 201. While there is ample evidence of personal gain, no objective evidence of legitimate public purpose, and months of secrecy, some of Trump's defenders argue that he did not act corruptly. This is not the only instance of Trump testing legal boundaries, as some experts say that his administration may be breaking specific laws in other ways as well.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Law | 18 USC Section 201 |
| Crime | Bribery |
| Sentence | 15 years |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Trump may have broken federal bribery laws in the Ukraine scandal
- Trump's conduct may have violated the federal bribery and gratuities law: 18 USC Section 201
- Trump's defenders argue that he didn't act corruptly
- There is ample evidence of personal gain and no legitimate public purpose
- Trump's plans to strip USAID of its independence may break federal laws
Trump may have broken federal bribery laws in the Ukraine scandal
There is evidence to suggest that Trump may have broken federal bribery laws in the Ukraine scandal. The bribery law makes it a felony for any federal "public official" to "corruptly" demand or seek "anything of value ... in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act". The maximum sentence for this is 15 years.
The Supreme Court has interpreted quid pro quo in a common-sense manner, and there is now snowballing evidence of quid pro quo that is so rock solid that even Trump's most die-hard stalwarts feel political pressure to concede it. There is ample evidence of personal gain, no objective evidence of legitimate public purpose, months of furtiveness, secrecy, and consciousness of guilt.
Trump's defenders want to argue that it's true that there was a quid pro quo, but Trump still didn't act "corruptly". However, this is a question that the DOJ does not appear to have addressed in its initial quick-look inquiry, probably because, at that time, evidence of quid pro quo was still circumstantial and speculative. That's no longer the case. Concrete testimony from acting US ambassador to the Ukraine William B. Taylor, Jr.; Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman; US ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland; and National Security Council aide Timothy Morrison, together with other corroborating evidence (e.g., the Sondland-Taylor texts) and even admissions all strongly point toward a quid pro quo.
Paul Rosenzweig, a former senior counsel in Independent Counsel Ken Starr's Whitewater investigation and now a senior fellow at the R Street Institute, says: "The facts as we now know them sketch out the possibility of a criminal violation of the anti-bribery statute".
Report Lockdown Breakers: Here's How to Do It
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Trump's conduct may have violated the federal bribery and gratuities law: 18 USC Section 201
There is ample evidence of personal gain, no objective evidence of legitimate public purpose, months of furtiveness, secrecy, and consciousness of guilt. Concrete testimony from acting US ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor, Jr., Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, US ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, and National Security Council aide Timothy Morrison, together with other corroborating evidence (e.g., the Sondland-Taylor texts) and even admissions all strongly point toward a quid pro quo.
Trump's defenders want to argue that, while there was a quid pro quo, Trump did not act "corruptly". However, this is a question that the DOJ does not appear to have addressed in its initial quick-look inquiry, probably because, at that time, evidence of quid pro quo was still circumstantial and speculative. That's no longer the case.
Trump's conduct in the Ukraine scandal may have also broken federal bribery laws. Paul Rosenzweig, a former senior counsel in Independent Counsel Ken Starr's Whitewater investigation and now a senior fellow at the R Street Institute, says: "The facts as we now know them sketch out the possibility of a criminal violation of the anti-bribery statute".
Trump's proposals have also tested legal boundaries in other ways. For example, Trump and Musk signalled plans to effectively shut down the US Agency for International Development (USAID) by stripping away its independence and placing it under State Department control.
Troy Leon Gregg: A Criminal's Unlawful Exploits
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Trump's defenders argue that he didn't act corruptly
However, legal experts argue that Trump may have broken federal bribery laws in the Ukraine scandal. The bribery law makes it a felony for any federal "public official" to "corruptly" demand or seek "anything of value ... in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act." The maximum sentence for this crime is 15 years.
There is also evidence that Trump may have broken other federal laws. For example, his proposal to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) by stripping away its independence and placing it under State Department control could be seen as a violation of the agency's mandate to provide humanitarian aid and support democratic governance.
Despite the mounting evidence, the Department of Justice has not opened a formal criminal inquiry into Trump's conduct. This has led some to question whether the Department of Justice is fulfilling its duty to uphold the law impartially and without political influence.
Trump's defenders may argue that he did not act with corrupt intent, but the evidence suggests that he may have broken federal laws, including bribery and possibly others. The question now is whether the Justice Department will take action to hold him accountable.
Breaking Laws: Evading Capture and Getting Away
You may want to see also
Explore related products
There is ample evidence of personal gain and no legitimate public purpose
Trump's conduct may have violated the federal bribery and gratuities law: 18 USC Section 201. This is a question that the DOJ does not appear to have addressed in its initial quick-look inquiry, probably because, at that time, evidence of quid pro quo was still circumstantial and speculative. However, concrete testimony from acting US ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor, Jr., Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, US ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, and National Security Council aide Timothy Morrison, together with other corroborating evidence (e.g., the Sondland-Taylor texts) and even admissions all strongly point toward a quid pro quo.
Trump's defenders argue that even if there was a quid pro quo, Trump did not act "corruptly". However, there is ample evidence of personal gain, no objective evidence of legitimate public purpose, months of furtiveness, secrecy, and consciousness of guilt.
Paul Rosenzweig, a former senior counsel in Independent Counsel Ken Starr's Whitewater investigation and now a senior fellow at the R Street Institute, says that "the facts as we now know them sketch out the possibility of a criminal violation of the anti-bribery statute".
Trump's proposals have also tested legal boundaries in other ways. For example, Trump and Musk signalled plans to effectively shut down the US Agency for International Development (USAID) by stripping away its independence and placing it under State Department control. This would have undermined USAID's long-standing role in providing humanitarian aid, promoting global health initiatives, and supporting democratic governance in some of the world's most volatile regions.
Avoiding Illegal Actions: What Breaks HIPAA Law?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Trump's plans to strip USAID of its independence may break federal laws
Donald Trump's plans to strip the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) of its independence may break federal laws. USAID has long been a part of U.S. foreign policy, providing humanitarian aid, promoting global health initiatives, and supporting democratic governance in some of the world’s most volatile regions. It administers billions of dollars in aid annually, addressing crises ranging from natural disasters to health pandemics.
Trump and Musk have signalled plans to effectively shut down the agency by placing it under State Department control. This could be a violation of federal bribery and gratuities law: 18 USC Section 201. The bribery law makes it a felony for any federal "public official" to "corruptly" demand or seek "anything of value ... in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act." The maximum sentence for this is 15 years.
There is ample evidence of personal gain, no objective evidence of legitimate public purpose, months of furtiveness, secrecy, and consciousness of guilt. Concrete testimony from acting US ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor, Jr., Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, US ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, and National Security Council aide Timothy Morrison, together with other corroborating evidence, strongly points toward a quid pro quo.
Despite this, the Department of Justice has not opened a formal criminal inquiry into Trump's conduct.
Antigone's Actions: Lawful or Lawless?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Trump may have broken federal bribery laws in the Ukraine scandal.
The bribery law makes it a felony for any federal "public official" to "corruptly" demand or seek "anything of value ... in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act."
The maximum sentence is 15 years.
The quid pro quo is the interpretation of the Supreme Court.
Trump and Musk signalled plans to effectively shut down the agency by stripping away its independence and placing it under State Department control.
