I am having such a hard time understanding how one group of seemingly similar people can look at an issue so differently. I am not talking about nuanced issues like immigration, or healthcare for all. I’m taking about an issue that to me, seems simple.
The issue is the law and whether or not it was broken. I recall being a teenager and trying to get my driver’s license and one of the main takeaways from that experience was “ignorance of the law is not an excuse“. When you are just a young kid, your whole life you are ignorant of something, and mostly, it simply results in being reprimanded by your parents or teacher. And yet, while attempting to get my driver’s permit I realized that as I was getting older, so too, were my responsibilities. I am not telling you this story as some type of amazing discovery, we all have experienced something like this, perhaps not under the same circumstances, but the lesson was taught to us nevertheless. This is the the reason I find it so difficult to understand why breaking the law, a concept we all understand well, can have differing points of view and how these points of view are being used by our politicians to sway us towards their narrative.
This, to me, is what is happening in our current news cycle. Here we have a President who released incomplete transcripts (yes, the transcripts his administration released are not the original transcripts), which explicitly request the help of a foreign power in a domestic election. And yet, there are people that say this is not illegal. Either because it was not quid pro quo, because there was no pressure, because Trump is trying to end corruption, etc. However, the very law says:
Under Commission regulations, it is unlawful to knowingly provide “substantial assistance” to foreign nationals making contributions or donations in connection with any U.S. election. Further, no person may provide substantial assistance in the making of any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement by a foreign national. “Substantial assistance” refers to active involvement in the solicitation, making, receipt or acceptance of a foreign national contribution or donation with the intent of facilitating the successful completion of the transaction. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to individuals who act as conduits or intermediaries. See Explanation and Justification for 11 CFR 110.20 at 67 FR 69945-46 (November 19, 2002) [PDF].
https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/
The issue at hand is about “requesting help from a foreign government to help with a US election”. As a President you can ask for help from a foreign government to help you with another country’s election. You can ask for help to clean the White House. You can ask for help from a foreign government with your taxes. You can even ask them to help you change a tire on Air force One. You can ask help from a foreign government for about anything, as long as it does not have anything to do with a US election. That is it. Quid pro quo, corruption, pressure or ignorance have nothing to do with it. They are irrelevant. You cannot ask for help from a foreign government with a US election.
Many people will say, but Trump didn’t know. To them I say, remember that you can still get a ticket for speeding even if you didn’t know the speed limit.
So back to my initial point, how can I read and understand one thing and other people read the same thing and understand another? That is the magic of humans and the chief reason we have laws. These laws are there to make sure an action has a prescribed consequence. A consequence that can be interpreted, but cannot be ignored. And just like speeding, simply because you got away with it before, does not mean you will get away with it this time.
