🧵My take on the Homan story and a general problem in our laws:
Homan's obviously dirty. There were undoubtedly more of these 'transactions' (that's how FBI got onto him originally). He's been revealed as a slimy, dishonest person and a betrayer of the public's trust. But ...
Homan's obviously dirty. There were undoubtedly more of these 'transactions' (that's how FBI got onto him originally). He's been revealed as a slimy, dishonest person and a betrayer of the public's trust. But ...
https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/1977402059931480554
The Vance/Bondi line that Homan 'did not commit a crime' and didn't take a 'bribe' rests on the fact that the payoff occurred during the campaign and *before* he held an official position. He was soliciting money in *anticipation* of being in a position, later, to bestow favors.
On its face (putting aside that it was a sting), the $50,000 was a 'bet' that Homan would take office and then be able to perform the services he was advertising. It was a 'bet' because his taking office wasn't certain. Can you 'bribe' a private citizen ?
The FBI, in conducting the sting and then recommending prosecution, thought Homan's conduct *was* criminal. But it isn't open and shut in strictly legal terms (IMO). A corrupt AG, unsurprisingly, concluded there'd been no crime. That's the line she and Vance are clinging to.
This illustrates a problem I've previously posted about. I had reliable information, soon after Trump's first inauguration, that, days before the inauguration, Ivanka accepted, from a foreign government, a 'gift' of expensive, specially commissioned (one of a kind) jewelry.
The foreign government had been frustrated in its dealings with the previous U.S. administration, on a range of high profile matters, and looked forward to re-engaging on those matters with a more 'constructive' Trump administration.
The jewelry's transportation to the U.S. and delivery to Ivanka were handled in a covert manner (details omitted). Certainly, the donor didn't want the gift to be publicly known.
The gift was not reported in Ivanka's first financial disclosure statement after Trump took office. If it had been made post-inauguration, the gift would clearly have been reportable.
But, as I discovered in researching the regs after being told the above story, the fact that the gift occurred 1-2 days *before* inauguration meant there was no obligation to disclose (there's a loophole for gifts, as opposed to income earned before nomination to office).
Both the Homan case and the Ivanka gift illustrate that our laws are weak in dealing with transactions *in anticipation* of a recipient's ascent to an important government position but while still a private citizen. New law(s) may be needed. END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
