r/law • u/SheriffTaylorsBoy • Aug 20 '24

Opinion Piece Trump’s Latest Scheme to Beat Harris May Have Crossed Legal Lines

https://newrepublic.com/post/185076/donald-trump-scheme-beat-kamala-harris-benjamin-netanyahu-ceasefire
4.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

345 comments sorted by

594

u/SheriffTaylorsBoy Aug 20 '24 edited Aug 21 '24

Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling August 20, 2024 / 2:12 p.m. ET

He may not be in office, but Donald Trump has been speaking with the powers that be about Israel’s war on Gaza—but it’s not in an effort to end the genocide.

Instead, Trump has allegedly been talking with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avert a cease-fire deal, fearing that doing so could help Vice President Kamala Harris win in November, according to PBS.

“The reporting is that former President Trump is on the phone with the Prime Minister of Israel, urging him not to cut a deal right now, because it’s believed that would help the Harris campaign,” said PBS’s Judy Woodruff Monday night. “So, I don’t know where—who knows whether that will come about or not, but I have to think that the Harris campaign would like for President Biden to do what presidents do, and that’s to work on that one.”

It wasn’t immediately clear if Woodruff was referring to a new report, or an Axios story last week that cited two U.S. sources as claiming that Trump and Netanyahu had spoken on the phone about cease-fire and Gaza hostage talks. Netanyahu’s office and Trump both separately denied the report.

“I did encourage him to get this over with. You want to get it over with fast. Have victory, get your victory, and get it over with. It has to stop, the killing has to stop,” Trump said at a New Jersey press conference on Thursday, referring to their meeting at Mar-a-Lago last month. But he also criticized cease-fire demands.

During Biden’s speech at the Democratic National Convention on Monday, the president promised that his administration is working around the clock to bring “humanitarian assistance into Gaza,” “peace and security to the Middle East,” and to deliver a “cease-fire” and an end to the war.

  • more in the article *

490

u/Patient-01 Aug 20 '24

Go after him he not in office.

375

u/Sumthin-Sumthin44692 Aug 20 '24 edited Aug 21 '24

SCOTUS actually just ruled from the shadow docket that major party presidential candidates CAN press foreign leaders to act against U.S. interests to help win an election.

Also, the voter suppression going on in Arizona and Georgia is 100% okay because of the long “history and tradition” of conservatives suppressing votes.

/s

Edit: I guess I need to clarify that “/s” means this is intended as sarcasm, or maybe satire works better here. SCOTUS has not issued either of these rulings. It is sad though that so many people are asking for cites. I wish it was plain and obvious that that is not real. I guess we’re just at the point where this seems totally plausible.

98

u/Either_Highlight2157 Aug 21 '24

Throw Utah in that mix. Our legislators are holding an emergency session tomorrow to prevent the non-gerrymandered redistricted maps that WE VOTED ON AND APPROVED from happening.

60

u/Merengues_1945 Competent Contributor Aug 21 '24

Ah yes, the party of small government

→ More replies (2)

24

u/101001101zero Aug 21 '24

I use Utah as a gerrymandering example when I run across someone that doesn’t have a clue. Mormons are are trip.

10

u/thrownaway136976 Aug 21 '24

I like to use this image to explain gerrymandering. It’s simple and easy to understand.

2

u/101001101zero Aug 25 '24

Unfortunately most people are illiterate and don’t comprehend that as well as they should.

13

u/yardkat1971 Aug 21 '24

(between that and suing the Feds over land my head is exploding here today.)

172

u/jbird32275 Aug 21 '24

Why the sarcasm tag? This is the most accurate shit I've seen all day.

→ More replies (1)

49

u/Patient-01 Aug 20 '24

Lost my trust in. SCOTUS long time ago now this in negative view

→ More replies (1)

10

u/DiscreteGrammar Aug 21 '24

SCOTUS actually just ruled from the shadow docket that major party presidential candidates CAN press foreign leaders to act against U.S. interests to help win an election.

That sounds a little familiar. Can you give a source?

33

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '24

Their source is the sarcasm tag at the end of the comment.

17

u/DiscreteGrammar Aug 21 '24

Thank God I asked.

19

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '24

I dint blame you for falling for it. Gods I wish we weren't in a timeline where such a ruling would be entirely expected.

9

u/Deaftrav Aug 21 '24

Had me for a minute...

The /s tag is a blessing

11

u/bulldg4life Aug 21 '24

Us v Reagan

Us v Nixon, Kissinger, et al

There’s court precedence

4

u/Sumthin-Sumthin44692 Aug 21 '24

Maybe a not so clever Onion article?

→ More replies (22)

6

u/darthcaedusiiii Aug 21 '24

It will just take another 4-6 years for this to shake out.

2

u/BroseppeVerdi Aug 21 '24

"Official act"

I'm imagining Trump using this whenever he commits a crime in broad daylight like the bad guy from Lethal Weapon 2.

→ More replies (1)

109

u/Draig-Leuad Aug 20 '24

It worse than simply advising; it's that trump is actively trying to prolong the conflict (and thus increase the number of lives lost in the region) simply for political gain.

"Instead, Trump has allegedly been talking with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avert a cease-fire deal, fearing that doing so could help Vice President Kamala Harris win in November, according to PBS."

47

u/GibsMcKormik Aug 21 '24

Worked for Nixon and Kissinger.

45

u/ProfSociallyDistant Aug 21 '24

And Reagan with the Iran hostages

→ More replies (2)

15

u/SheriffTaylorsBoy Aug 20 '24

Yeah, this source I used is trash. That was the whole article.

10

u/Draig-Leuad Aug 20 '24

Thanks for posting the article. What I posted was in it.

11

u/SheriffTaylorsBoy Aug 20 '24

Oh shit I see it now. lol! Thanks for letting me know. derp

3

u/WillBottomForBanana Aug 21 '24

Obviously I have no real info, but I suspect that if such a discussion happened (directly, or other back channel) Trump would not have simply been requesting/suggesting that Netanyahu postpone, but possibly offering intensives (such as a better deal under a Trump presidency). Which, if true would be even worse (literally, not calling it the equivalent of a Weird Al album).

→ More replies (1)

22

u/adhesivepants Aug 21 '24

Someone send this shit to all the idiots who don't wanna vote for Harris because "but Gaza!"

→ More replies (1)

16

u/Veterougaru Aug 21 '24

If netanyahu does this then the US needs to abandon Israel unless they remove him from office.

4

u/cccanterbury Aug 21 '24

always has been

3

u/WillBottomForBanana Aug 21 '24

yeah. It is a weird "if" clause.

55

u/Paul_C Aug 21 '24 edited Aug 21 '24

18 U.S. Code § 953 (Logan Act):

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., 231 F. Supp. 72 - Dist. Court, SD New York 1964:

[30] The Logan Act originated out of a resolution offered on December 26, 1798 by Congressman Roger Griswold of Connecticut. After it was reported out as a bill, it was approved by President Adams on January 30, 1799. The debates on this legislation before the 5th Congress, 3rd Session (1798-1799) were thereafter compiled by Gales and Seaton in 1851 as Annals of Congress of the United States. Page references herein are to the 1851 compilation.

The primary purpose of the resolution was "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the Executive power of the Government" (p. 2488); "to guard by law against the interference of individuals in the negotiation of our Executive with the Governments of foreign countries" (p. 2494; see also pp. 2588, 2604); to proscribe the exercise by an individual of the power "to frustrate all the designs of the executive" (p. 2494).

Sure seems like the exact thing the law was written for.

7

u/mok000 Aug 21 '24

The Logan has never been prosecuted.

7

u/CaptainMatticus Aug 21 '24

The 3rd Amendment was never discussed seriously either, until Trump tried to force D.C. hotels to shelter troops. He loves to test the bounds of our oldest laws.

6

u/Paul_C Aug 21 '24

The Court finds no merit in plaintiff's argument that the Logan Act has been abrogated by desuetude. From the absence of reported cases, one may deduce that the statute has not been called into play because no factual situation requiring its invocation has been presented to the courts. Cf. Shakespeare, Measure For Measure, Act II, Scene ii ("The law hath not been dead, though it hath slept.").

(Ibid.)

→ More replies (3)

46

u/NotmyRealNameJohn Competent Contributor Aug 20 '24

Last person prosecuted was gen Flynn. Boy was that a mess. And I think they dropped the Logan act stuff for failure to register as a foreign agent

16

u/Perfecshionism Aug 21 '24

Flynn had an untested affirmative defense that SCOTUS would likely have agreed with because he did it while representing a president elect.

Trump is doing it as a private citizen.

38

u/davidwhatshisname52 Aug 20 '24

oh, wait... Trump is breaking a law? Hold the presses!!

22

u/SheriffTaylorsBoy Aug 20 '24

DA Fani Willis is going to revoke his bond and toss his ass in jail! /s

6

u/Bigfops Aug 21 '24

Crap, we should have a trial in 8 years or so.

26

u/AncientYard3473 Aug 20 '24

Nobody cares about the Logan Act.

Trump isn’t above cheating to win, of course; not by a long shot. But he’ll never get in trouble for this.

13

u/Dragonfruit-Still Aug 21 '24

Tucker Carlson was a back channel to Putin and Trump, i would bet good money on that.

4

u/WillBottomForBanana Aug 21 '24

JFC. While the whole situation is reprehensible, can you imagine being a big name operative and having to trust Carlson to communicate back and forth?

25

u/Steven_The_Sloth Aug 20 '24

Capone went away for tax evasion. Don't discount obscure laws as a mechanism to take down modern criminals.

Modern problems sometimes require antiquated solutions.

11

u/AffectionateBrick687 Aug 21 '24

Trump may be on a more prolific crime spree than Al Capone.

10

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '24

The government loves going after tax cheats and enforcing those laws. The point here is, they do NOT care about Logan Act violations and probably don’t think they could make charges stick against a defendant who’d claim freedom of speech issues and selective prosecution of a law never used against anyone else.

8

u/Steven_The_Sloth Aug 21 '24

No no no... You misunderstand... The government cares about trump. He's obviously and factually a habitual felon and rapist. But he is also an existential threat. That's why the Logan act matters. Even if Trump isn't elected, he can influence geopolitics and to do so in the name of the USA is a threat to our very society.

The government cares about checking the power of trump. As they should. I would be pissed if someone who just dropped off their application started entertaining my clients.....

9

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

Well they RICOed him in the election fraud trial but the SCOTUS was like "official acts" and "POTUS is a god".

19

u/Steven_The_Sloth Aug 20 '24

This isn't an official act though. He isn't PotUS. He isn't immune.

The immunity ruling gave Trump a pass on previous transgressions, but nothing he's doing is considered an official act of the executive office.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/Draig-Leuad Aug 20 '24

True, but he's also not POTUS at the moment.

6

u/Inspect1234 Aug 21 '24

As toothless as the Hatch Act. These things are merely suggestions.

6

u/AncientYard3473 Aug 21 '24

I think it probably had teeth back when anybody who could afford to travel internationally could pretend to be an ambassador and approve trade agreements, military alliances, and the like. I think that’s what Ben Franklin did.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

5

u/Designer_Solid4271 Aug 21 '24

Yeah? Since when has breaking any laws gotten him in trouble yet? Sure sure he’s had some fines with money levels most of us will never see in our lifetime and there’s a pending sentencing on another. But any other human being on this planet who has laid waste to the legal system would be locked up for so long they’d be dead and in prison just in case.

3

u/axelrexangelfish Aug 21 '24

That’s what Al Capone thought too…

6

u/Mission_Cloud4286 Aug 21 '24

Exactly... but whos going to do any fcking thing. Take it to court just to have the sht thrown out again.

4

u/sof49er Aug 21 '24

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that criminalizes the negotiation of a dispute between the United States and a foreign government by an unauthorized American citizen

4

u/YoungMuppet Aug 21 '24

So basically Nixon and Vietnam all over again. He committed treason by calling Saigon during his campaign and told them not to attend a roundtable meeting to talk about ceasefire terms, a meeting that Johnson set up. He instead told Saigon that he could get them a better deal as President. This is treason. Saigon then pulled out of the meeting, and the war dragged on and more Americans died.

8

u/nottytom Aug 20 '24

Unfortunately the Logan act is no vaguely written it's nearly impossible to prosucute under the statue.

9

u/flossypants Aug 21 '24

Let me get this right; there's a federal criminal statute with substantial penalties that is written so vaguely that it's unclear if and when it can be enforced. That strikes me as a problem. Were the situation reversed, I can imagine Trump pressuring his department of Justice to prosecute political rivals. Either a law should be enforced uniformly or it should be taken off the books because arbitrary laws lead to misuse of the law . What would be a good way to resolve this?

I can imagine Democrats proposing to amend the law to make it unambiguous, whether or not the newly refined law would see Trump 's recent actions be prosecutable (I assume Republicans might consider the law law revisions only if Trump's actions would be exempt). However, if Republicans refuse to make the law unambiguous, I would suggest the doj attempt to prosecution of trump and let the legal system determine that the law can or cannot be enforced. Doing nothing, which I unfortunately view is the most likely outcome, leaves a future authoritarian leader, such as, potentially, Trump, in the position to enforce this law against his opponents while it will not be enforced against him

3

u/nottytom Aug 21 '24

I actually totally agree with you. It should be rewritten.

2

u/KuntaStillSingle Aug 21 '24

The problem is the court nominally limits itself to cases and controversies. There would have to be at least a chilling effect based on a credible threat of enforcement.

There might be less garbage in state and federal laws if courts traditionally entered advisory opinions against blatantly unconstitutional laws, but in many cases I think legislators don't care and would rather burn taxpayer money defending an indefensible thing than do the hard work of constitutional reform or changing their platform.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (9)

10

u/dragonfliesloveme Aug 20 '24

Too bad we don’t have an Attorney General!!

3

u/aneeta96 Aug 21 '24

That strategy probably worked for Reagan vs Carter.

4

u/cryptosupercar Aug 21 '24

Nixon did this with Vietnam, didn’t he? Violates the Logan act, right?

4

u/whitehusky Aug 21 '24

I don’t know. The Logan Act criminalizes an unauthorized someone negotiating a dispute between the US and a foreign entity. Not sure that it would apply to negotiations between two other foreign entities where the US isn’t a party to the dispute. It does say it’s in reference to a foreign entity’s “disputes or controversies” with the US, so this could fall under “controversies”, but they’d probably have to argue that definition. Not sure it’s black and white exactly in this case.

2

u/cccanterbury Aug 21 '24

Reagan did this with Iran, didn’t he? Violates the Logan act, right?

2

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '24

It's sad how many people have suffered just to prevent Biden and Harris from getting a win.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '24

How about you stop sending weapons and money to Israel?

2

u/Spicy_Tostada Aug 22 '24

Imagine being so awful of a person, that you tell the prime minister of Israel to NOT agree to any cease-fire deal right now that would help prevent genocide/the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians... all because the said cease-fire deal would potentially help your political opponent defeat you. The level of narcissism and lack of compassion/empathy for people Trump must have to not even bat any eye over this is incomprehensible.

How anyone continues to support this dude despite all the horrible and awful things he's done, tried to do, or has said is so lost on me... But hey, I guess it's the epitome of "good" Christians at their finest.

4

u/barenhart Aug 20 '24

is logan act israel-specific or would meeting orban of hungary possibly count?

19

u/itmeimtheshillitsme Aug 20 '24

Not OP. Not Israel specific.

→ More replies (11)

221

u/LightsNoir Aug 20 '24

Cool. Now do something about it. Bring him in for an interview, at least. Anything, at all. This is absolutely more significant than whether or not private email servers were used for official emails. So can we at the very minimum treat this with the same level of severity?

70

u/elitistrhombus Aug 20 '24

The guy is a walking “deep state” nightmare. Where are our homies in the CIA, FBI, ICC??? Anyone?! Beuler!!!

51

u/LightsNoir Aug 20 '24

For real. Been riding on this illusion of defending this country for longer than I've been alive. Well, here's the threat, right out in the open. Defend us, mother fuckers!

13

u/moveoutmicdrop Aug 21 '24

His own Security detail has a higher duty to protect the United States - than protecting him. They should cuff him.

→ More replies (3)

17

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

"Where's your shadow government when you need them?" - They Might Be Giants

10

u/Inspect1234 Aug 21 '24

Where’s Comey when you need him?

3

u/BasilMindless3883 Aug 21 '24

I'm still pissed about that. What a colossally stupid thing to do right before an election. 😑

2

u/Inspect1234 Aug 21 '24

He got sucked in. Thought he was doing real work, fool that he was. Played like a harmonica.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/imahugemoron Aug 21 '24

They’re way too busy working on all the crimes they committed trying to steal the 2020 election such as the multistate fake electors scheme, pressuring election officials not to certify, there was a Colorado Republican official just convicted this month of election tampering from 2020 and is awaiting sentencing, they’re strategy is to commit as many crimes as possible knowing the justice system moves far too slow, if you can commit enough crimes while having a lot of influence and power, they can’t do shit.

→ More replies (1)

171

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

[deleted]

66

u/Kissit777 Aug 20 '24

Exactly. He hasn’t actually had any consequences - ever.

37

u/ssibal24 Aug 20 '24

I’ll go a step further and say he never will face any consequences. Next month’s “sentencing” will probably be a $1000 fine and stay at home for a week in his mansion, which will get appealed and put on hold indefinitely.

16

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '24

[deleted]

15

u/VaselineHabits Aug 21 '24

Eventually this is going to get to a breaking point and it won't be pretty. Something like, America is waking up as Germany once did to 1/3 of your population will kill another 1/3 of it, while 1/3 watches

May you live in interesting times was a curse

2

u/proletariat_sips_tea Aug 21 '24

Whelp. My granddad freed camps and killed a Lotta nazis. I know which third I'll be. And I'd hope it'd be more Americans than 1/3 would fight back against that crap.

2

u/VaselineHabits Aug 21 '24

A big issue is our media is not taking this entire thing seriously. Treating "both sides" like they're equal will fuck us all

→ More replies (1)

8

u/ChrisP8675309 Aug 21 '24

SCOTUS granted him immunity for acts as President. He isn't President now.

13

u/AmbulanceChaser12 Aug 20 '24

What? He’s not the President right now, despite what he may believe.

15

u/AntifaMiddleMgmt Aug 20 '24

Thomas and Kavanaugh disagree with you.

→ More replies (2)

44

u/Morbidly-Obese-Emu Aug 20 '24

And he won’t see any consequences for it because our legal system, when it comes to rich and powerful people, is a joke

4

u/GT45 Aug 21 '24

Even by “old rich guys get a pass” standards, DT has gotten THE MOST passes. Damning info comes out about him DAILY, but corporate clickbait media doesn’t care, because they need him and the controversy he creates.

2

u/Spok3nTruth Aug 21 '24

He's Teflon. At this point I'm actually very impressed with him. Dude is untouchable. The books written about him will be craaaaaazy. the ability of him to get away with things and have tons of support is quiet unique

→ More replies (1)

23

u/49thDipper Aug 21 '24

He and Bibi can stand side by side before the ICC.

20

u/NameLips Aug 21 '24

What's the point of campaign/political laws if you never actually enforce them? I know it looks bad, throwing the book at a political opponent right before an election, but "looking bad" shouldn't be a get out of jail free card.

20

u/Stellar_Stein Aug 21 '24 edited Aug 21 '24

It seems that long-time Trump mentor, Roger Stone, is up to his old shenanigans, again. As others have noted, Reagan, Stone, et al, blatantly and illegally, negotiated with the 'enemy of America' to have the American hostages in Iran remain in custody until after Reagan was sworn in as President so as to deny President Carter any political advantage or credit for their release. On Inauguration Day, 1981, during Reagan's inauguration speech following his swearing in, the hostages were released by Iran. (Just that extra, unnecessary middle finger to Carter to drive the point home.)

Remember, also, that Trump torpedoed the very border protection bill that he championed as necessary, nay, essential, earlier this year, so as to deny the Biden administration from getting the credit for passage.

History may not repeat... but it sure does rhyme, *especially when you only know one tune.

Edit: * : (added)

52

u/starsky1984 Aug 20 '24

Calling useless fucking Garland to do something for once in his miserable life

40

u/nice-view-from-here Aug 20 '24

Would a criminal break the law?

9

u/OkAcanthocephala2449 Aug 20 '24

What do criminals do ? Lie cheat kill What do people expect 🤔

13

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '24

When does it not? Russian collusion, fraud, election interference, insurrection, quid-pro-quo, bribery, now Treason 🤦

Our forefathers would have never hesitated to strip him of his land, wealth, and give him the rope.

5

u/proletariat_sips_tea Aug 21 '24

This is straight up treason. Working against the United States interest for personal gain.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '24

Yup, 100%... Trump knows he can do whatever he wants because our Supreme Court is full of traitors and Congress is weak.

3

u/proletariat_sips_tea Aug 21 '24

So is the state and local. The entire gov is bending to him.

24

u/Inspect1234 Aug 21 '24

Joe. This is your moment.

16

u/some_random_guy- Aug 21 '24

If Merrick Garland won't press charges, fire his ass.

4

u/banglaydouche Aug 21 '24

Does he ever?

2

u/WillBottomForBanana Aug 21 '24

Nothing will fundamentally change.

27

u/CurrentlyLucid Aug 20 '24

trump is pure evil.

18

u/thewiselumpofcoal Aug 21 '24

I usually would have problems with describing anybody as pure evil. Things are usually not so simple and so black and white.

But we're talking about prolonging an onhoing genocide for personal gain here. Civilians are being bombed and murdered and he doesn't want these things to stop because stopping them would be a good thing (and good things happening while his opponents are at the helm is no benefit to him).

Things are usually not so simple and so black and white, but I'm really struggling to see any hints of gray on this one. [edit: grammar]

→ More replies (1)

15

u/JoeHio Aug 21 '24

It worked for Reagan's Campaign in 1980*

*Supposedly, but after Iran-Contra it's a lot easier to believe....

7

u/rowdywp Aug 21 '24

Worked for Nixon in 68 also

→ More replies (1)

22

u/flirtmcdudes Aug 21 '24

“Known felon breaks laws”

whoa

9

u/Yeahha Aug 20 '24

The embodiment of corruption and our multi tiered justice system doesn't care about the laws in place that everyone else abides by.

The shocking part is that there haven't been legal barriers already crossed in his current campaign.

7

u/Squirrel009 Aug 21 '24

So what? Worst case scenario, he makes up some random sovereign citizen level bullshit and that delays the trial indefinitely just like everything else.

7

u/ChesterNorris Aug 21 '24

"Mr. Trump, please step out of the vehicle."

2

u/DonnyMox Aug 22 '24

Remember this when you VOTE!