(08-10-2018 03:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 01:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 12:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 11:14 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  No. He's entitled to an opinion on the subject like any other fan.

That's not really true.

18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch

(a)Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—(1)takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2)influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(b)In this section, the term “covered government person” means—(1)a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
(2)an employee of either House of Congress; or
(3)the President, Vice President, an employee of the United StatesPostal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).

Yes it is true.

You need to read a tad more carefully. I dont see an 'official act' anywhere there. Nor do I see any particular 'partisan political affiliation.'

Hate to tell you every word is important, not just the phrase 'attempt to influence .... an employment decision' in isolation.

Further you missed the adjective 'solely' in the statute as well.

No, it's not reading more carefully- I've done that. I'll fully agree that maybe I need a better understanding of legal definitions.

I took (a)(2) to suggest that one doesn't have to actually do an "official act," just threaten another's "official act." In this case, would this not be a private employer's ability to discipline/fire their employees? Trump is threatening to influence their act -but if my understanding of what that word means is off, then it doesn't apply. Are all of the "official acts" described in the statute related pending/passed laws?

And Trump's "solely" selecting these players based on their political stance regarding the flag - would that not fit into the definition of partisan political affiliation? Or is that definition so narrow that it literally only describes someone's self-identified political party, and not a portion of the platform?

Official act means a government action. It is an anti-extortion law. And no, it is not related to 'pending/passed' laws -- you seemingly overlook the immense inherent power of various administrative and executive branch power/actions.

This means trump cannot 'do something' to get someone fired, nor 'do something' to get someone hired, nor can he threaten to 'not do something' *unless*. Nor can he use another's 'do something' or 'not do something' in lieu of his.

The 'solely' does not mean 'solely the players'. It means he has to do the 'do something' or 'not do something' for *solely* for partisan political affiliation. What 'political affiliation' is your defined group in this case? And, to be honest, the *solely* means just that ---- even if there is a .0000000001 per cent part of the issue being 'non-partisan' (even if it is for the purpose of researching the alien origins of Stonehenge, let's say) that still destroys the use of the statute. Words mean things.

Its not a matter of 'legal definitions'; it is a matter of reading and, if not understood, look at both the caselaw and the background and usage of the law.

Sorry, the Vox-lovers seemed to throw this piece **** around about a year ago. Hasnt changed since then. But it is amazing how many people still just throw it around without bothering with the background or reading the statute thoroughly.

Kind of like the Florida 'stand your ground' laws that so many people throw around willy nilly.

Goodness, even when I admit I may not understand an issue fully, you find someone to be a giant jack***. Who would have thunk that words mean things???? I wonder how old you are sometimes...

But hey, thanks for providing some education, even if it came with that wonderful Tanq tone that I love so much.

Focusing on the "solely" aspect of the statue, does in practice mean that the act/threat of action have to be directed pretty much at someone because of what political party they identify with? That because causes can be bipartisan, that the language is so narrowly defined that supporting a cause would not fit within that definition?