A few thoughts on how armchair lawyering in the Trump era can miss the point. Yesterday the White House put out two despicable tweets aimed at @KamalaHarris and @SenWarren. 1/ 
Andrea Mitchell (@mitchellreports) quickly called out the tweets as false. But then she pivoted to questioning their legality. 2/
She cited the wrong statute – her text comes from 18 USC 1913, not 31 USC 1352 – but that’s not the point. The point is that the law is not the point. 3/
Do the 14,000 folks who retweeted it really think it’s illegal for the White House to criticize a member of Congress? Was this 2015 tweet criticizing Mitch McConnell against the law? Of course not. 4/
Read literally, 18 USC 1913 would prevent the White House from putting in writing anything that attempts to move Congress on anything. That’s not logical, wise, or constitutional. The President has a job to do, even if this one is a malignant clown. 5/
Indeed, DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel has long interpreted this statute to bar only substantial expenditures on grassroots lobbying campaigns rather than public efforts to sway Congress. 6/
justice.gov/sites/default/…
justice.gov/sites/default/…
And here’s a link to all the times the Obama White House published Statements of Administration Policy on pending legislation. I worked on some of these. Misty water-colored memories! 7/
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/legislativ…
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/legislativ…
Anyway, if you see the White House saying loathsome things and your main concern is anti-lobbying laws or ethics regulations, you’re missing the point by a mile. 8/
The White House is smearing senators as criminal lovers and is calling human beings animals. Those are the points. Or as former U.S. Office of Government Ethics Director @waltshaub put it: 9/
If there’s a body of authority to appeal to in this instance, I’d point to this one, as noted by a lawyer-turned-priest named William Dailey (@wrdcsc). I’m Jewish and not an expert on this text, but it sure sounds right. 10/end
