The tech executives who groveled before Donald Trump bought protection from a man whose power expires on January 20, 2029, and the receipts will outlast him.
As a lawyer, I’d look at it this way: paying to settle a lawsuit is legal, and donating to a public project is legal. What turns either into a crime is a link: a specific outcome the payer intended to achieve, and an understanding that the money transfer was connected to it. Framing a transfer as a settlement or a donation doesn’t make it a safe harbor. Courts look at substance, not labels, and they know the practice of dressing an illegal act up as a legal one well.
So how do you measure that? You look at what was pending when the money moved, and whether the payment makes sense on its own terms. Why pay $16 million to settle a suit your own lawyers called meritless? What were the expected legal fees and reputational costs? How likely were you to lose or recover legal fees? And you look at where the money really went, because routing it to a presidential library or a ballroom doesn’t make it legal.
There are really two tests here. Toward shareholders, executives get wide latitude as long as they act in good faith with a business reason, even for decisions that are legal but shady. Under criminal law, the heart of the issue is intent: did they understand the money was buying a decision? Good faith doesn’t cover paying for an outcome. Personally, I’d argue we should expect more from CEOs paid hundreds of millions, though the law doesn’t set a higher bar. And the facts that point to intent, the emails, board minutes and calls, aren’t public. That’s what subpoenas, and eventually juries, are for.
Thank you, Mike! I agree the circumstances are hard to read any other way, and the timing does a lot of work. It feels like everyone involved became so brazen that they stopped even keeping up appearances. But it’s a country of laws, and I hope everything now goes through the processes as designed, setting an example of how things should be handled, without shortcuts and hypocrisy.
On an adjacent issue, I also really hope we reconsider whether the pardon power still serves its purpose. It was written into the Constitution in 1787, borrowed from the English king’s prerogative of mercy. Lately, it has looked less like mercy and more like a shield for family and allies.
It could be considered protection money rather than a bribe. The implication was that Trump would try to destroy their businesses if they didn’t pay tribute. It’s like the local mafiosi demanding “protection money” from a local business, instead in this case it’s the president of the United States and major international corporations.
Thanks for your clear-eyed discussion. I'm sharing this with all my lawyer friends, including peeps with the IL AG's office...who have been quietly preparing state cases they think have merit; and who have been in contact with other Democratic states' AG offices.
As Flounder said in Animal House, "Oh boy, this is gonna be GREAT!"
It would take an army of lawyers to actually prosecute the level of crimes that have occurred the last two years. The president has been collecting bribes from far and wide in exchange for favors because he operates like a mob boss, not a respectable politician.
As a lawyer, I’d look at it this way: paying to settle a lawsuit is legal, and donating to a public project is legal. What turns either into a crime is a link: a specific outcome the payer intended to achieve, and an understanding that the money transfer was connected to it. Framing a transfer as a settlement or a donation doesn’t make it a safe harbor. Courts look at substance, not labels, and they know the practice of dressing an illegal act up as a legal one well.
So how do you measure that? You look at what was pending when the money moved, and whether the payment makes sense on its own terms. Why pay $16 million to settle a suit your own lawyers called meritless? What were the expected legal fees and reputational costs? How likely were you to lose or recover legal fees? And you look at where the money really went, because routing it to a presidential library or a ballroom doesn’t make it legal.
There are really two tests here. Toward shareholders, executives get wide latitude as long as they act in good faith with a business reason, even for decisions that are legal but shady. Under criminal law, the heart of the issue is intent: did they understand the money was buying a decision? Good faith doesn’t cover paying for an outcome. Personally, I’d argue we should expect more from CEOs paid hundreds of millions, though the law doesn’t set a higher bar. And the facts that point to intent, the emails, board minutes and calls, aren’t public. That’s what subpoenas, and eventually juries, are for.
Well, I think what Tim Cook did was a bribe based on the publicly available facts and circumstances.
Thank you, Mike! I agree the circumstances are hard to read any other way, and the timing does a lot of work. It feels like everyone involved became so brazen that they stopped even keeping up appearances. But it’s a country of laws, and I hope everything now goes through the processes as designed, setting an example of how things should be handled, without shortcuts and hypocrisy.
On an adjacent issue, I also really hope we reconsider whether the pardon power still serves its purpose. It was written into the Constitution in 1787, borrowed from the English king’s prerogative of mercy. Lately, it has looked less like mercy and more like a shield for family and allies.
It could be considered protection money rather than a bribe. The implication was that Trump would try to destroy their businesses if they didn’t pay tribute. It’s like the local mafiosi demanding “protection money” from a local business, instead in this case it’s the president of the United States and major international corporations.
Thanks for your clear-eyed discussion. I'm sharing this with all my lawyer friends, including peeps with the IL AG's office...who have been quietly preparing state cases they think have merit; and who have been in contact with other Democratic states' AG offices.
As Flounder said in Animal House, "Oh boy, this is gonna be GREAT!"
It would take an army of lawyers to actually prosecute the level of crimes that have occurred the last two years. The president has been collecting bribes from far and wide in exchange for favors because he operates like a mob boss, not a respectable politician.
I think I'm going to enjoy the year 2027 in Politics.