Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Fiendish Thingy

(24,157 posts)
25. 18 US code Sec. 201:
Thu Apr 6, 2023, 10:52 AM
Apr 2023
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

Explain to me how you would prove “intent to influence” without a document or recording of a quid pro quo conversation? It’s all unethical as hell, but without evidence of intent, not illegal. If it were illegal, every lobbyist in DC would be in prison.

You’re dreaming if you think a jury could be convinced to unanimously convict without such evidence.

(a) For the purpose of this section—
(1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
(2) the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and
(3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
(b) Whoever—
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;
(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(c) Whoever—
(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—
(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or
(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;
(2) directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
(3) directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

He beat the Anita Hill rap and perceives himself as invincible for life Zambero Apr 2023 #1
One of the dumbest decisions of the Founders imo Marius25 Apr 2023 #4
people didn't live very long back then GenXer47 Apr 2023 #7
That's not accurate. If you made it past childhood in those days you stood a good chance Ocelot II Apr 2023 #27
+1 SouthernDem4ever Apr 2023 #30
Indeed. A very close semblance to royalty with elements of theocracy Zambero Apr 2023 #9
He doesn't seem concerned. Dios Mio Apr 2023 #28
Proven Supreme Court corruption? Is there a rectifying solution? The Wielding Truth Apr 2023 #2
Impeachment but that isn't going to happen. Ace Rothstein Apr 2023 #18
It isn't up to the DoJ to police the Supreme Court, which has no ethics rules. Ocelot II Apr 2023 #3
Things like taking bribes are a crime, not just ethical violations Marius25 Apr 2023 #5
It's a bribe only if the offerer has a case before the court and the money is paid Ocelot II Apr 2023 #17
DOJ has no jurisdiction over the SCOTUS. MineralMan Apr 2023 #6
This is blatantly false. Marius25 Apr 2023 #8
For what federal crime would he be investigated? MineralMan Apr 2023 #12
Probably Bribery, but that's not what you said Marius25 Apr 2023 #14
Again, what federal crime? MineralMan Apr 2023 #16
According to the ProPublic report, he violated disclosure laws Marius25 Apr 2023 #23
Disclosure law violations are misdemeanors. The law has few teeth; Ocelot II Apr 2023 #29
Or at least a Senate investigation Fiendish Thingy Apr 2023 #10
Looks like bribery to me. Marius25 Apr 2023 #11
An indictment based on that alone would be quickly acquitted, if not dismissed. Nt Fiendish Thingy Apr 2023 #13
Why do you think that? Marius25 Apr 2023 #15
Because Harlan Crow has not been a party in any case before the Supreme Court Ocelot II Apr 2023 #21
He could be a go between. Kingofalldems Apr 2023 #35
Is there evidence of this? Ocelot II Apr 2023 #38
He's a republican. Kingofalldems Apr 2023 #40
That's not evidence. It's opinion and supposition. Ocelot II Apr 2023 #42
I don't care what you think. Kingofalldems Apr 2023 #43
All righty, then; and I'll do likewise. Have a nice day. Ocelot II Apr 2023 #45
18 US code Sec. 201: Fiendish Thingy Apr 2023 #25
Wining and dining in exchange for rulings that favor the GOP isn't bribery. Ocelot II Apr 2023 #20
According to the ProPublic report, Thomas violated the disclosure law Marius25 Apr 2023 #22
Disclosure regulations are regularly violated, which doesn't make it OK, Ocelot II Apr 2023 #24
Only remedy is impeachment. Thunderbeast Apr 2023 #19
.... CatWoman Apr 2023 #32
Tax evasion? usonian Apr 2023 #26
so if it's the case that we can do nothing NJCher Apr 2023 #31
The least we can do is embarrass the hell out the them with constant mockery. Earth-shine Apr 2023 #37
Important to support their great investigative work! I just hit the DONATE button at the top :) JudyM Apr 2023 #33
So, are other Supreme Court justices sucking up goodies from billionaires? Paladin Apr 2023 #34
Maybe we need a Jan-6-style congressional panel on SCOTUS corruption to kick the DOJ into motion. Earth-shine Apr 2023 #36
As stated above, this is not a matter for the DoJ. However, Ocelot II Apr 2023 #39
As stated above, the least we can do is embarrass the hell out the them with constant mockery. Earth-shine Apr 2023 #41
I'm all for that. Roberts has lost control of his court, Ocelot II Apr 2023 #44
I don't have hope that Roberts can do anything. Earth-shine Apr 2023 #47
I'm afraid you're right. Ocelot II Apr 2023 #48
@SenatorDurbin 's statement on reports of undisclosed gifts accepted by Justice Clarence Thomas. LetMyPeopleVote Apr 2023 #46
Clarence remains one of America's biggest embarrasments NotVeryImportant Apr 2023 #49
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Time for DoJ to open anot...»Reply #25