I tried to rob a bank, but was caught.

[guillaumeb]

I tried to steal a car, but was caught before I could do so.

I offered someone $10,000 to kill someone, but that someone was an undercover policeman.

So in all three cases, am I guilty of attempting to commit a crime, or innocent because I failed to complete the attempt?

Bonus question for SCOTUS scholars.

We all know that money=speech because the SCOTUS tells us it is so.

Consider this situation.

I am speeding and get stopped by the police, If I hand my license to the officer and wrap the license in a $50 bill, can I argue that the law is unfair and be innocent of attempted bribery?

The various Trump/GOP arguments would be funny if the situation were not so serious to a functional democracy.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. The federal bribery statute includes attempts. *Trying* to bribe someone is the crime of bribery,

even if the bribe isn't completed. 18 US Code § 201 says it occurs when a public official "directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value."

[guillaumeb]

2. Of course.

And if anyone tries to bribe a police officer, the attempt is the crime.

But the GOP, and Trump backers, have to ignore all of these examples and insist that because Trump was caught he is innocent.

[Collimator]

5. This is actually kind of unique reasoning for that crowd.

It used to be that the only unforgivable sin was to get caught.

[guillaumeb]

6. Trump's many crimes have esxposed the GOP.

They have no values, and no real beliefs, except for their love of money and power.

[The_Counsel]

3. Brilliant!

I think you may have stumbled upon the best argument I’ve ever seen for overturning “Citizens United.”

Money does not equal speech, because it is essentially bribery and therefore a crime.

Speech = speech. Nothing else.

[guillaumeb]

4. We agree on this, but the SCOTUS does not.

Everyone knows buying politicians is bribery.

[The_Counsel]

7. "Everyone Knows Buying Politicians Is Bribery."

Everyone SHOULD, anyway...

[Volaris]

8. No, but for a while in Illinois you could hand that officer the fine for the ticket

And it was considered paid.

But that didnt work as well as anyone wanted, so that's not a thing you can do anymore lol!

[guillaumeb]

9. But if money equates to speech,

and the SCOTUS says that it is, bribery has been eliminated.

[Volaris]

10. Not quite...not everything of value has a dollar amount attached to it...

Dirt on biden was what trump wanted Ukraine to bribe him with...and outside the context of the upcoming election that might be very well considered practically worthless.

Dont get me wrong. I think the CU Decision will go down in history as the one thing Roberts absolutely fucked up on (and we had better find a way to fix it if we want our votes to count for anything).

I am saying I think that money is not necessarily the only thing of value.

[guillaumeb]

11. I agree.

But in this case, Trump is monetizing his Presidency.

[Volaris]

13. Oh, FOR SURE.

The articles of impeachment on the Emouluments Clause ALONE would take MONTHS of public testimony at this point.

And the thing is.. if he had really wanted to, he could have legally monitized his time in office all he wanted ON THE BACK END (after he left office) and nobody would have gave a shit.

Hes too stupid to have figured that out tho. That by itself, should constitute an impeachable offense...I'm not defending him but jesus dude, all you had to do was 'The Job', and keep your mouth shut for 4 years.

smdh.

[guillaumeb]

18. I like your "he's too stupid" argument, and agree with it.

If his name were Donald J. Smith, no one would have ever heard of him, except perhaps in New York City.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. I am not terribly worried that the Supremes will buy into this line of thought...

But, if they do, we have more problems than Trump.

[Volaris]

14. Its this.

It's this. If Robert's can't jerk the noobies leashes hard enough to keep them in line on something like this, he probably shouldnt have that job (and I believe Robert's takes his position, the Court, and his place in the courts history seriously enough that he will break their necks jerking that chain if he has to).

[guillaumeb]

16. Agreed.

But the SCOTUS has equated money with speech.

[Igel]

15. It varies.

I aim at somebody, pull the trigger, and it's attempted murder. I pick up the gun in the kitchen to go out and try to kill somebody, slipping and hitting my head so I go to the hospital instead, it's not attempted murder. Not close enough to the actual attempt.

I sit and talk with somebody about committing murder, planning it, it's conspiracy to commit murder. I try calling him instead, in order to talk with him about committing and planning a murder, but he doesn't pick up, and it's not attempted conspiracy to commit murder. That's just not a crime.

I talk to somebody in order to get them to change their testimony, it's witness tampering. I know a subpoena's on its way so I quickly shred and flush the documents, it's destruction of evidence. Both are obstruction of justice.

But if I talk to somebody and ask them to talk to somebody to get them to change their testimony, and they say no, it's a bad idea. It's not a crime. It's not conspiracy. And I'm nowhere near what would be the crime scene. Same for destruction of evidence. I ask my accountant (had I one) to destroy records and he says "no", the records aren't destroyed. Attempted destruction of evidence isn't a crime.


As for "money = speech" that's too simplistic to be called reductionist. It summarizes the opinion to say what the original did not say--in other words, it rewrites it. Money is speech in the sense that you can use it to buy ads and publicity, so limiting it (or requiring that donors be public) chills speech by implication; if you donate money for that purpose, for lobbying, for paying others to speak for you, it's effectively speech. If you use it to pay your water bill, it's not speech. We used to be opposed to things that chilled free speech. Now that there's speech we don't like, we're all about not just chilling it, but freezing it. For many the principle was "I'm a latent authoritarian, so I have rights and you don't" not "I'm a progressive, I respect rights, both yours and mine."

[guillaumeb]

17. I understand your argument, and agree in part.

In this instance, Trump clearly attempted to bribe and extort the Ukrainian President. That he released the money after learning of the whistleblower's complaint is irrelevant. He made the offer to Zelensky, and he withheld the funds.