18 USC 201 Bribery of public officials and witnesses
(b) Whoever—
(2) being 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
There is no doubt now that Donald Trump demanded something of value from Ukrainian President Zelensky in exchange for an official act - a White House meeting, and the release of embargoed military aid. EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland declared in Congressional testimony there was a "quid pro quo" - something of value to Trump in his re-election effort.
John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation's Meese Center - a former Bush administration official - rationalizes that it is all within the discretionary power of the President over foreign affairs.
But that view cannot survive the testimony of Fiona Hill, Deputy National Security Adviser:
This is a critical, critical portion of testimony. pic.twitter.com/aO7gJBG8Ia
(b) Whoever—
(2) being 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
There is no doubt now that Donald Trump demanded something of value from Ukrainian President Zelensky in exchange for an official act - a White House meeting, and the release of embargoed military aid. EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland declared in Congressional testimony there was a "quid pro quo" - something of value to Trump in his re-election effort.
John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation's Meese Center - a former Bush administration official - rationalizes that it is all within the discretionary power of the President over foreign affairs.
But that view cannot survive the testimony of Fiona Hill, Deputy National Security Adviser:
This is a critical, critical portion of testimony. pic.twitter.com/aO7gJBG8Ia
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) November 21, 2019
No comments:
Post a Comment