WHAT IF ... .

Ya don't have to be a lawyer to read statutes. And today, anybody with access to Google can find em easily enough. While not exactly beach reading, some statutes are really quite simple.

Title 18 of the United States Code is where one finds the statutes defining federal crimes. Each section makes clear: if you do the crime, you do the time. What could be simpler?

Take, for example, the section entitled "BRIBERY":

"Whoever ... being a public official ...directly or indirectly, corruptly demands ... anything of value personally ... in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act ... shall be fined ... or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years ... and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor ... under the United States."

Pretty clear, huh?

Judges and lawyers seek help in defining the reach of any law, or the validity of any argument, by testing the words against hypothetical fact situations. That exercise is not limited to legal discussions. We all resort to everyday hypotheticals. They begin with the words "WHAT IF."

So here is my hypothetical for your consideration:

i) WHAT IF both houses of Congress passed a law, signed by the President, directing that a $400 million aid package be given to a foreign power ally, and

ii) WHAT IF a "public official" thereafter blocked the legislated transfer of that money, and

iii) WHAT IF that official then "directly or indirectly" demanded from that ally something of personal value to him (e.g., help with his forthcoming election campaign,) "in return for" performing the official act of unblocking the transfer of the funds,

Then:

Wouldn't that public official, (and each person who conspired with him) be subject to conviction of BRIBERY in accordance with the plain language of the statute, and face a possible sentence of fifteen years in prison, and disqualification from public office?

And, an icing-on-the-cake hypothetical:

iv) WHAT IF we had, at the head of the Department of Justice, an Attorney General who was faithful to his oath of fealty to the Constitution, instead of craven loyalty to the public official who appointed him,

Then,

Wouldn't the DOJ launch a vigorous criminal investigation of the offenders, from the President on down? And wouldn't the subjects of that criminal investigation, at least for starters, be the public officials involved in this scandal, -- at least those we know of so far: Messrs. Trump, Pence, Mulvaney, Perry, and Sondland? Plus, of course, the civilian co-conspirators: the clown car full of Rudy Giuliani's  --- those already indicted and those not-yet indicted?

And while we are on the subject of statutes, here's another interesting one:

"Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, ... comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder ... his ... punishment, is an accessory after the fact,... and...shall be imprisoned for not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment ... prescribed for the punishment of the principal ... . "

Yup, that's what it says. And you, Mr. Attorney General, will likely never be charged under this statute, but you will never get rid of the stink.

A bientot.

.....................................

As my regular readers know, there is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you want a notice of

 each new posting, send me an email and I will add you to the notice list.  

mlondon34@gmail.com