WP EXCLUSIVE What Trump promised oil CEOs as he asked them to steer $1 billion to his campaign

[JT45242]

13. Sure seems like a clear solicitation of a bribe to me ...

Someone had to put that on tape. THat is beyond lobbying and a clear quid pro quo -- give me a million dollars and I will do X,Y, and Z.

That seems like pretty straightforward statement of the law

From Justice manual website https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-834-intent-parties#:~:text=%C2%A7%20201%2C%20which%20prohibit%20the,or%20receipt%20of%20unlawful%20gratuities.
The public employee bribery statutes provide a useful analogy. Subsections (b) and (c) of 18 U.S.C. § 201, which prohibit the offering or soliciting of bribes to or by Federal officials, require a showing of an intended quid pro quo. Subsections (f) and (g) of 18 U.S.C. § 201, on the other hand, prohibit the giving or receipt of unlawful gratuities. Subsections (f) and (g) of Section 201 do not require proof of a quid pro quo or unlawful influence, but require the government to prove merely that something of value was given to a public official for or because of an official act that the official performed or will perform. See United States v. Niederberger, 580 F.2d 63, 68-69 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 980 (1978); United States v. Evans, 572 F.2d 455, 481 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 870 (1978); United States v. Brewster, 506 F.2d 62, 82 (D.C. Cir. 1974). In essence, a gratuity is given either before or after the f act, not to influence a decision but to reward a person for making or having made a decision that would have been made in any event. See United States v. Previte, 648 F.2d 73, 82 (1st Cir. 1981).