Comments made by Donald J. Trump and Amy Coney Barrett in the last few days suggest that Trump may have made his nomination of Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court contingent upon a promise to rule in Trump's favor on all election related proceedings regardless of the merits of the case. Such an agreement would constitute the making and acceptance of an illegal solicitation for appointive public office, constituting a conspiracy to defraud the United States by undermining the tally of a Federal Election. The following arguments will demonstrate that probable cause exists to initiate an investigation of Trump and Coney Barrett based upon violations of:
18 U.S. Code § 210.Offer to procure appointive public office
18 U.S. Code § 211.Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office
18 U.S. Code § 371.Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
I am publishing this article as a request that in the process of Coney Barrett's confirmation process, that FBI Agents conducting her background check, along with Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee aggressively follow up on this matter. It should be noted that while Federal Judges do have absolute immunity from civil and legal liability for externalities associated with decisions they make on the bench, Judicial immunity absolutely does not include an improper agreement to rule in a particular manner in a forthcoming proceeding, in exchange for nomination to the Supreme Court. For an investigation to be launched, there must be probable cause. The standard of probable cause is that a reasonable person would feel that there is reason to believe that a crime has been committed. Examples of a suspect's past behavior are acceptable as supporting arguments for establishing probable cause. In the second section of this article, we will examine the three sections of the US Code that appear to be relevant to this conspiracy, and explain how they apply.
18 USC §§ 210, 211 & 371
18 U.S. Code § 210 states "Whoever pays or offers or promises any money or thing of value, to any person, firm, or corporation in consideration of the use or promise to use any influence to procure any appointive office or place under the United States for any person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." This is the section that would be applied to Amy Coney Barrett. If she agreed to rule in Trump's favor on any election related proceedings that came before the Supreme Court, in exchange for him nominating her to the court, then she appears to have violated this statute. In this case, the "thing of value" that Coney Barrett is suspected of having offered is a favorable ruling in any election related proceedings that come before the Supreme Court of the United States, related to the 2020 Presidential Election. This is obviously very important to Trump, as he has made numerous public statements disparaging mail in voting, and has assembled a substantial campaign legal team that is alleged to be preparing to attempt to abbreviate the mail ballot counting process in a number of battleground states.1 Given that the Trump organization is currently engaged in a variety of lawsuits, that his campaign has spent over one billion dollars on his re-election effort, and that investigations of the Trump Administration could lead to substantial legal jeopardy for Donald Trump, there is no question that being able to win re-election is a "thing of value" to Donald J. Trump. Courts have established that freedom from incarceration clearly meets the "thing of value" standard outlined in this statute.2 Trump also gains quite a bit financially from being President. For a failed businessman who has been through bankruptcy six times like Trump has, the ability to bill the government for lodging Secret Service agents at his properties should not be ignored as a form of financial gain.3
18 U.S. Code § 211 states: "Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." It is the belief of this author that it was Trump who offered the quid pro quo to Coney Barret: a seat on the Supreme Court, in exchange for a favorable ruling in any election related cases that come before the SCOTUS, particularly those related to counting -or when to stop counting- absentee ballots. The reasons for thinking Trump made this kind of solicitation is obvious: he expects this kind of behavior from people that he appoints or nominates to high government office. A recent whistleblower report from the DHS showed that DHS Acting Director Chad Wolf, a Trump appointee, was regularly instructing Intelligence specialists at the Department of Homeland Security that Intelligence Reports should downplay the presence of right wing extremists at protests and promote the Antifa and BLM talking points favored by Trump's re-election campaign.4 Another report showed that CIA Director Gina Haspel -a Trump appointee- was limiting the flow of intelligence from the CIA to the White House to keep Trump from being exposed to information that is counter to his administration talking points.5 After FBI Director Christopher Wray testified to Congress that white nationalist groups were the primary terrorist threat against the United States, it was leaked to Newsmax (which is owned by Trump supporter Christopher Ruddy) that the Trump Administration had begun interviews for Wray's replacement.6 There are even examples of Trump firing Inspectors General who have taken actions that angered him.7 Chief Justice John Roberts stated in United States v. Gamble that while justices are required to give plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt, they are not required to exhibit a degree of naivete that could be mistaken for a separation from reality. An on-going pattern of these kinds of expectations of people that he appoints or nominates is certainly grounds to expect that Trump would have maintained those same expectations when nominating a Supreme Court justice.
18 U.S. Code § 371 applies to: "two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy..." Justice Department guidance for prosecutors states that conviction under this statute requires proof of an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act. The illegal agreement in this case would be the above described quid pro quo: promises of favorable rulings in election proceedings in exchange for a seat on the Supreme Court. The Criminal Intent would be Donald Trump's desire to limit the counting of mail-in ballots in a way that will benefit his campaign by increasing his chances of re-election. The "overt act" would be the verbal confirmation of the agreement between the two, and the nomination of Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Application of this statute is appropriate in this case, as the Supreme Court has argued that the law applies to any conspiracy that impairs the function of by obstructing function, or minimizing the ability of the government to function in a fair and impartial manner.8; Trump has admitted (in his own odd way) that he's already engaged in this kind of behavior. In a recent appearance on FOX News Trump said: "“I didn't discuss certain concepts and certain things. And some people say you shouldn't. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't. But I decided not to do it. And I think it gives her freedom to do what she has to do. She has to make rulings. But I think she's going to make a lot of people very proud.”9 That Trump expects a new Justice would substantially improve his chances of suspending absentee vote counting efforts is confirmed by his recent claim that a full court is necessary to decide election related cases.10 Here we have an admission that Trump wanted to discuss rulings in particular cases, but his lawyers told him he couldn't. Donald Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he has no problem with lying so his denial of having discussed certain issues should be deemed irrelevant. What this statement proves is that Trump was aware of certain pending issues before the court, and received some kind of assurance from Coney Barrett that she would demonstrate the kind of loyalty that Trump expects.
Seeking a quid pro quo that could help to guarantee his re-election is an act that's entirely in keeping with Donald Trump's character. Even his most ardent cheerleaders, if you could get them in private, away from the news cameras would admit, "Well of course he did that. That's who he is. I don't think he's got it in him to be able to resist doing something like that." Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he expects a high degree of loyalty from those he appoints and nominates to government positions. This is a pattern of behavior that has been demonstrated throughout his administration. It is entirely plausible that Trump has demonstrated the exact same pattern of behavior in selecting Amy Coney Barrett. Therefore, it is essential that FBI agents involved in Coney Barret's background check, along with Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee question Barrett extensively on this issue.
If you enjoyed this essay, please consider picking up a copy of my book The Perpetual Hamster-Wheel of Stupidity, now available in the Kindle store
1. Trump readies thousands of attorneys for election fight. fight. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/27/trump-legal-network-election-day-fight-422035
2. United States v. Singleton, 144 F.3d 1343, 1350 (10th Cir. 1998)
3. How Much Has the Government Spent at Trump’s Properties? It Won’t Say. https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-2020-how-much-has-the-government-spent-at-trumps-properties-it-wont-say
The only kind of "deal" IQ45 can negotiate is a criminal one.
ReplyDelete#IQ45 has entered the realm of corruption of the likes that can only be seen in Russia
ReplyDeleteYou forgot to include any evidence that such an agreement exists.
ReplyDeleteThat's why you have an investigation. All I have to do is show probable cause, which is a reasonable belief that a crime may have been committed.
Delete