Thursday, August 29, 2019
Political Mayhem Thursday: Two things
1) Johnson "prorogues" Parliament (Funkadelic remains unaffected)
As part of his efforts to get a no-deal Brexit, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson asked the Queen to suspend (or as he called it, "prorogue") Parliament until October, which will limit the time that Parliament will have to come up with an alternative.
I'm pretty sure the Queen felt she had to agree, but hated doing it. Here is why:
A no-deal Brexit would be very bad for two parts of the United Kingdom: Northern Ireland and Scotland. For Northern Ireland, it would likely mean the re-institution of a hard border between it and the Republic of Ireland, which will be a dramatic change that very few people there want. For Scotland, the concomitant exclusion from the EU customs union will hurt the economy without providing any discernible benefit. This makes two things much more possible: the unification of Ireland, and the departure of Scotland from the UK. And for the Queen, both are very bad outcomes.
2) Trump tells staffers to seize land for the wall, and suggests that he will pardon them if they commit crimes while doing so
This is ugly--but right in my wheelhouse. According to the Washington Post, President Trump has directed officials to "aggressively seize private land" in order to build big new portions of a border wall, disregard environmental rules, and that "he will pardon them for any potential wrongdoing should they have to break laws to get the barrier built quickly."
There is a lot wrong here, of course. The abuse of eminent domain appears to be just another one of those things (like blowing up the federal deficit) that Republicans care deeply about until Trump does it. Plus, it seems pretty clear to me that Trump's offer (if it was fairly specific, which is unclear from the story) could constitute bribery.
The relevant federal bribery statute is 18 U.S.C. 201:
(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 anypublic 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—
Importantly, the statute does not require money be paid, but rather a thing of value-- and the immunity of a promised pardon is certainly a thing of value. I'm not sure that (b)(1)(A) would apply, since Trump can order subordinates to do things straight up, but I'm more certain that (b)(1)(C) would be the stronger charge. Of course, a different section of the same statute covers influencing testimony through bribery, and the same argument regarding bribery would apply to an offer of a pardon if someone gives false testimony. This does not mean Trump would be indicted while in office-- that is very unlikely--but it could be a ground for impeachment.
(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 orperson;
