Should Rosie O'Donnell be prosecuted?

She could have charges brought against her. That would be fine with me. I am no fan of hers, even if we do have similar political views. This article argues that it would be a difficult case. Comedians are given to hyperbole, which is particularly true in O’Donnel’s case. It could also be argued that by so openly making her statement, it is clearly not intended to be taken seriously. People don’t commonly announce in advance that they are planning to do criminal behavior. The publicity that she would get from such a trial would be of benefit to her. As they say, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

No, it was obviously not a serious attempt to sway the vote. On the other hand Republican senators overall will probably gain more than $2M having voting for the bill not to mention the vast sums the billionaires now running the country stand to gain.

Was that $2 million total, or $2 million each? That would be getting pretty close to my price.

Since the law specifically includes Members of Congress in the definition of “public official” in the wording, it is clear, without any ambiguity, that she violated 18USC201, and that she is subject to prosecution, and that it would be impossible to refute the evidence that she offered a bribe.

However, times being what they are, I am sure nobody will bother to prosecute. Most people realize that beyond TV, she is probably too dumb to know better.

The Attorney General knows that the prosecution would fail. This would a show trial, nothing more. And the Trumpies would look stupid for bringing suit.

The underlying issue is that if Justice sued Rosie, she would probably open legal discovery to look into other bribes that the other 524 members of congress get – and NOBODY in Congress wants that to be looked into.

@LostInParadise I understand the issues of convicting her. But the one aspect that article you cited ignores is that she repeated the same offer numerous times. That could be a real effort to influence the vote. One tweet, yeah, it was a stupid joke. Multiples? I don’t know.
And, while I really struggle to call her a comedienne, recent cases show that prosecution isn’t out of the realm of possibility. Remember the whole fiasco with Kathy Griffin and the severed head? How about Snoop Dog’s video with the gun and the assassination gag? Both got investigated by the Secret Service. How about Al Franken with the sexual assault issues? In all these cases, the celebs tried to claim it was a joke, but the question really becomes, was it? But in the end, the real question being asked is not “will she be prosecuted” but “SHOULD she be prosecuted”?

@seawulf575 – as long as we’re picking on celebrities, let’s not forget that the famous right winger Ted Nugent threatened to kill Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. link

Your examples were slanted to make Democrats look bad. Why is that? Why didn’t you include a threatening Republican?

@seawulf575 , Why would she announce to the world that she is willing to commit a crime? That would be pretty stupid, even for O’Donnel. It would also expose Collins and Flake to criminal charges for accepting a bribe. If I were a judge and this case were presented to me, I would toss it out.

So to counter Trump didn’t know asking for help to get elected from Russia is Rosie O’Donnell was unaware of 18USC201.B.1.a.

Die in a whataboutism fire.

As avowedly liberal as I am, I cannot stand Rosie O’Donnell. She was never very funny,

Rather than prosecute her, people like her and Sarah Palin should just be ignored. No access to social media, no twitter allowed, no facebook, No press conferences, no TMZ,

Rosie is in a new show called SMILF (It means what you think). Fantastic show. Rosie is the mom of the main character.

I think the show is on Showtime but not sure. I pirate it.

@zenvelo – she was pretty good in A League of Their Own. And not bad for her minor part in Sleepless in Seattle.

After that… not so much

Also great in Misery.

So trying to be funny isn’t an excuse to charges of breaking federal law?
So what do we do about Trump asking the Russians to give him the hacked emails from Hillary?
Slippery slope, dude.

@elbanditoroso I’m not forgetting Ted Nugent. Personally, anyone that threatens a president needs to be investigated. I’m not making any excuses for him. Of course not all his statements that the left gets wound up about are threats. Calling for Obama and Hillary to be tried for Treason and hung really isn’t any worse than people calling for Trump to be impeached before he took office or calling for him to be arrested because someone claimed something about him.
But the most recent action in this vein is from Ms O’Donnell. And I noticed you avoided that question…Do you think she SHOULD be prosecuted?

I don’t think she was trying to be funny, but neither do I think it was a serious attempt at bribery. Unless it’s taken to trial and I end up serving on her jury, however, my opinion doesn’t really matter all that much. What does matter is the actual law, which seems to have been given a rather superficial reading by those in the punditocracy commenting on this matter.

Here is the full text is the relevant statute, and here is the section at issue:

18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses

(b) Whoever—

(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—

(A) to influence any official act

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.

The key phrase here is “corruptly gives,” which was defined by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in US v Chen (1985) as requiring a higher degree of intent than is ordinarily the case when considering whether a gift of money, goods, or services violates the law. Specifically, it requires the intent to influence a public official to commit or allow a fraud on the United States and/or the American public.

If the prosecution thinks it can prove that O’Donnell intended her tweet to be taken as a serious bribe offer under the heightened standard of intent required by the statute, then by all means bring charges against her. But if they don’t think they are in a position to meet the statutorial requirements of corrupt intent as defined by the federal courts, then bringing charges would just be a waste of time and money.

@johnpowell That wasn’t Rosie in Misery, it was Kathy Bates.

@filmfann Not much difference, except the actual bribe. He mentioned the 30,000 emails that Russia supposedly had and said that if they turned them over, they would be mightily rewarded by our Press. In other words, he is suggesting they sell them to the press. Not much different than what most people around here do when it comes to things like that. Another thought on that was that Hillary was continually claiming that there were no classified materials in her e-mails, but then started screaming about how releasing them was a threat to national security. So which is the true story? But to actually come out and say you will pay a senator $2M to vote a certain way on a bill? And to repeat it several times? That falls back into law space and the law is pretty specific.

@SavoirFaire I actually read that differently. Corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official to influence any official act. Her tweets were somewhere between an offer and a promise to influence that vote. And it wasn’t offered globally…it was offered to two specific senators. I think at that point a halfway decent prosecutor could make the case of intent.
I agree she would have welched on the agreement if they voted that way…much the same way so many celebs stated they were going to move out of this country if Trump was elected. Yet they are all still here.
But I think I understand…you are saying she broke the law, but that it would be a hard burden of proof in court so prosecution would be a waste of time and money.

Does this list just mean the Koch Borthers are able to buy public officals cheaper than O’Donnell is?

Pompeo, Mike (R-KS) House $71,100
Blunt, Roy (R-MO) Senate $40,700
Ryan, Paul (R-WI) House $39,522
Moran, Jerry (R-KS) Senate $34,800
Lankford, James (R-OK) Senate $31,600
Rubio, Marco (R-FL) Senate $31,140
Scott, Tim (R-SC) Senate $26,200
Johnson, Ron (R-WI) Senate $24,075
Portman, Rob (R-OH) Senate $22,300
Paul, Rand (R-KY) Senate $21,050
Heck, Joe (R-NV) House $20,800
Ayotte, Kelly (R-NH) Senate $19,800
Toomey, Pat (R-PA) Senate $19,000
Lee, Mike (R-UT) Senate $18,300
DeSantis, Ron (R-FL) House $15,000
Hudson, Richard (R-NC) House $15,000
McHenry, Patrick (R-NC) House $15,000
Grothman, Glenn S (R-WI) House $12,500
Isakson, Johnny (R-GA) Senate $12,500
Wolf, August (R-CT) Senate $11,800
Valadao, David (R-CA) House $11,667
Comstock, Barbara (R-VA) House $11,500
Duffy, Sean P (R-WI) House $11,000
Yoder, Kevin (R-KS) House $11,000
Graves, Garret (R-LA) House $10,500
Kennedy, John (R-LA) Senate $10,500
Stefanik, Elise (R-NY) House $10,500
Young, Todd (R-IN) House $10,500
Hurd, Will (R-TX) House $10,250
McCaul, Michael (R-TX) House $10,250
Smith, Lamar (R-TX) House $10,250
Amash, Justin (R-MI) House $10,000
Black, Diane (R-TN) House $10,000
Blackburn, Marsha (R-TN) House $10,000
Blum, Rod (R-IA) House $10,000
Boozman, John (R-AR) Senate $10,000
Bost, Mike (R-IL) House $10,000
Brady, Kevin (R-TX) House $10,000
Buck, Kenneth R (R-CO) House $10,000
Burr, Richard (R-NC) Senate $10,000
Chaffetz, Jason (R-UT) House $10,000
Coffman, Mike (R-CO) House $10,000
Conaway, Mike (R-TX) House $10,000
Cramer, Kevin (R-ND) House $10,000
Crapo, Mike (R-ID) Senate $10,000
Culberson, John (R-TX) House $10,000
Curbelo, Carlos (R-FL) House $10,000
Denham, Jeff (R-CA) House $10,000
Dent, Charlie (R-PA) House $10,000
Duncan, Jeff (R-SC) House $10,000
Farenthold, Blake (R-TX) House $10,000
Faso, John (R-NY) House $10,000
Flores, Bill (R-TX) House $10,000
Gallagher, Mike (R-WI) House $10,000
Garrett, Scott (R-NJ) House $10,000
Gohmert, Louis B Jr (R-TX) House $10,000
Gowdy, Trey (R-SC) House $10,000
Graves, Tom (R-GA) House $10,000
Griffith, Morgan (R-VA) House $10,000
Guinta, Frank (R-NH) House $10,000
Guthrie, Brett (R-KY) House $10,000
Hardy, Cresent (R-NV) House $10,000
Harris, Andy (R-MD) House $10,000
Hensarling, Jeb (R-TX) House $10,000
Huelskamp, Tim (R-KS) House $10,000
Huizenga, Bill (R-MI) House $10,000
Jenkins, Evan (R-WV) House $10,000
Johnson, Bill (R-OH) House $10,000
Jordan, Jim (R-OH) House $10,000
Katko, John (R-NY) House $10,000
Kelly, Mike (R-PA) House $10,000
Labrador, Raul (R-ID) House $10,000
Lamborn, Douglas L (R-CO) House $10,000
Long, Billy (R-MO) House $10,000
Love, Mia (R-UT) House $10,000
McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) House $10,000
McClintock, Tom (R-CA) House $10,000
Messer, Luke (R-IN) House $10,000
Mills, Stewart (R-MN) House $10,000
Mullin, Markwayne (R-OK) House $10,000
Mulvaney, Mick (R-SC) House $10,000
Noem, Kristi (R-SD) House $10,000
Nunes, Devin (R-CA) House $10,000
Olson, Pete (R-TX) House $10,000
Paulsen, Erik (R-MN) House $10,000
Perry, Scott (R-PA) House $10,000
Peterson, Collin (D-MN) House $10,000
Poliquin, Bruce (R-ME) House $10,000
Price, Tom (R-GA) House $10,000
Roskam, Peter (R-IL) House $10,000
Rothfus, Keith J (R-PA) House $10,000
Scalise, Steve (R-LA) House $10,000
Schweikert, David (R-AZ) House $10,000
Scott, Austin (R-GA) House $10,000
Sessions, Pete (R-TX) House $10,000
Shelby, Richard C (R-AL) Senate $10,000
Shuster, Bill (R-PA) House $10,000
Tiberi, Pat (R-OH) House $10,000
Tipton, Scott (R-CO) House $10,000
Upton, Fred (R-MI) House $10,000

Well, for starters, federal election law doesn’t allow an individual campaign contribution of more than $2,700 per election (e.g. primary and general) for a candidate. Rosie O’Donnell was being over-the-top and making a point.

Can we just prosecute her for being a cheer leader wannabe, meh actress, lousy comic, and loudmouth irritant?
All those charges put together ought to get her life, or nearly.

@seawulf575 “Her tweets were somewhere between an offer and a promise to influence that vote.”

If you take them seriously. So the first thing that the prosecution would have to prove is that she wasn’t joking or being facetious.

“And it wasn’t offered globally…it was offered to two specific senators.”

It’s irrelevant to the statute whether you are attempting to bribe one person or a thousand people.

“I think at that point a halfway decent prosecutor could make the case of intent.”

If the normal standard of intent applied, I would agree. The problem in this case is that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has said that “corrupt intent” is a higher standard than ordinary intent. So we can’t just read the statute on its own and draw conclusions from that. We have to read it in light of the existing jurisprudence surrounding the statute, which includes the 1985 decision defining corrupt intent.

“I agree she would have welched on the agreement if they voted that way”

Perhaps, but it wouldn’t have made any difference. Failing to deliver on a corrupt promise doesn’t exonerate one from having made the corrupt promise in the first place. If the prosecution could adequately prove corrupt intent, it wouldn’t matter that the payment had never been made (or even that Flake and Collins didn’t vote against the bill).

“But I think I understand…you are saying she broke the law, but that it would be a hard burden of proof in court so prosecution would be a waste of time and money.”

I’m not saying whether or not she broke the law. That would require an investigation and information that neither we nor the professional pundit class have available to us. I’m saying that a trial would only be justifiable if the prosecution genuinely thought it could make a sufficient case for corrupt intent. Otherwise, it would just be a show trial.

@zenvelo now you are trying to confuse campaign contributions with bribery. Funny that you leave off all the Dems that Soros supports along the way. Maybe if you did a little homework along that line as well….? Just to be rounded out? Oh wait! Never mind. That might challenge your fantasy world.

@Love_my_doggie She wasn’t offering a campaign contribution. She was offering a reward. BIG difference. Different set of laws altogether.

@SavoirFaire If you take them seriously. When she made the same offer repeated times, that sounds like an actual offer instead of just a bad joke. Yeah, that could be wrangled into a believable thing. As I said before, once you could fluff off as a gag. Repeated makes that claim a lot harder to believe.
The statute could apply to one or all, that is true. The point I was making about only offering it to two specific senators is that it really narrows down the believability that it was a gag. She was targeting specific individuals and that would hurt her claim of just a joke as well.
In the 9th circuit court, it would never fly because she is a liberal. Their track record at holding liberals accountable is poor. But specifically offering two senators a large bribe to vote a certain way would certainly constitute corrupt intent in most normal courts of law. It is a sad statement that we have to have a separate standard for one federal court in this country.
The welching part is just my supposition of what would happen if they voted against the tax reform bill or if someone came after her for breaking the law. She would then claim it was a joke, and see? I didn’t pay so there was no crime….it’s just a joke. But you are right…the offer is enough of a crime.
It would require an investigation, but really, she has pretty much handed any prosecutor a rock solid case complete with evidence. The real question is whether we want to enforce our laws or not.

Someone who supports Trump so much, should be careful calling for people to be held accountable for what they say there….

Maybe ODonnell’s lawyer did the tweet, like when Trump dodges accountability for his words…

@MrGrimm888 You and I have been over and over this…I’m not a YUGE Trump fan. I’ve stated many times that if he breaks the law he should be punished. I’m also not a YUGE fan of trying to stretch every thing he says as some violation worthy of arrest. But in Rosie’s case, there isn’t a lot of gray area.

@seawulf575 “When she made the same offer repeated times, that sounds like an actual offer instead of just a bad joke.”

I don’t think it’s a joke. But there are other ways to be non-serious (e.g., sarcasm or exaggeration). In any case, look at it from a prosecutor’s point of view: scattered in between her various tweets offering money to Collins and Flake are other tweets (including retweets) where Rosie indicates that she’s not being serious. If you look at her entire Twitter timeline, instead of just a few out of context tweets, it becomes very difficult to make a case that would get past a judge (let alone convince a jury).

“In the 9th circuit court, it would never fly because she is a liberal.”

She wouldn’t be tried by the Ninth Circuit. The reason I brought up the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is because they are the ones who made the controlling decision in US v. Chen (1985) to define “corrupt intent” as requiring a higher burden of proof. That’s the only way in which they are relevant to this discussion: their decision in that case makes it significantly harder to prosecute someone for bribery under 18 USC § 201. (And their decision doesn’t just apply in their court. The Ninth Circuit is a federal court of appeals. Until they are overruled by the US Supreme Court, their decision holds for the entire country.)

“It would require an investigation, but really, she has pretty much handed any prosecutor a rock solid case complete with evidence.”

The problem is, no she hasn’t. That’s the point I’ve been trying to make. The law is complicated, and words often have specialized meanings within the court system that don’t completely line up with how we might use them in ordinary language. So what might seem to you like evidence of a crime under the statute very likely isn’t enough to prosecute in this case. There’s just too much countervailing evidence to meet the standard of proof that would be required for a judge to even allow the prosecution to begin in the first place.

“Yeah, that could be wrangled into a believable thing.”

If a prosecutor’s case depends on wrangling a statement into something then the prosecution has a piss-poor case that isn’t going hold up in any court of law. Courts require a slightly higher standard than “well that sounds like it could be ___, to me”.

Along with her remarks to Ben Shapiro, Yes.

@SergeantQueen O’Donnell’s response to Shapiro was removed for being against Twitter guidelines, but violating Twitter guidelines isn’t against the law.

^My understanding is that Trump routinely violates twitter protocols, but is never punished because of his large following.

In other words, we hold our stand up comedians to a higher standard, than the POTUS. Food for thought…...

@MrGrimm888 Well, that’s one way of looking at it. Another would be that Twitter affords the office of the President greater powers and privileges, as well as a higher degree of deference, than it affords to comedians. And indeed, I imagine most people wouldn’t see this as being at all out of order prior to the current administration. A lot of attention goes to the ways in which Trump questions and even breaks existing norms. I wonder how long it will take for people to pay attention to the ways in which he has inspired others to do the same.

^Some of his supporters will NEVER learn. They have their eyes squeezed shut, too tight, to ever see reality…

^Funny…that’s how I feel about most liberals….

Same @seawulf575

Gee, it’s almost like partisanship is at an all-time high and people are having a harder time understanding one another than ever before. If only there was some kind of forum where people could get to know each other and discuss their political differences as people rather than as generic straw men.