whether this constitutes bribery. you know, there s case law on bribery, and i m no supreme court scholar or lawyer or advocate, but there s new case law with the mcdonald case what constitutes an official act, and that hasn t been addressed in this space, and i think professor turley mentioned that. right, and i think professor turley said a meeting does not constitute an official act. i think it s the mcdonald case. and professor turley pointed that out for us last week. yes. since this inquiry s unofficial and unsanctioned start in september, the process has been partisan, biassed, unfair, republicans questioning has been curtailed routinely, i think we
this constitutes bribery. you know there is case law on bribery. i am no supreme court scholar. there is new case law with the mcdonald s case what constitutes an official act. that hasn t been addressed and professor turley mentioned that. and professor turley said a meeting doesn t constitute an official act. and the mcdonald case goes to that. and turley pointed that out last week. since this inquiry s unofficial and unsanctioned start in september, the process has been partisan, biassed, unfair. republicans questions has been curtailed routinely.
turn to the subject of partisanship. it s a subject alexander hamilton was concerned about. he wrote some words advocating for the ratification of the constitution, the federalist papers laid out the reasons madison and principally hamilton thought the impeachment clause was necessary, but he also flagged concerns. he said in many cases of impeachment, it will connect itself with the preexisting factions and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence and interest on one side. where in the other in such cases there always will be the greater danger that the decision will be made more pi tby the strength o parties than by innocence or guilt. do you think hamilton predicted a real danger here? certainly that has proven to be the case certainly of the two
secret treaty of dover of 1670. it always was a reason for him converting to catholicism. i don t think that dog will hunt in the 18th century and i don t think lit hunit will hunt today. when you take a loa case called mcdonald s versus the united states, the supreme court looked at a public corruption bribery case. this was a case where gifts were actually received, benefits were actually extended. there was completion. this was not some hypothetical of a crime that was not fulfilled or an action that was not actually taken. the supreme court unanimously overturned that conviction.
does that track with the rule of law that we talked about? on obstruction i would encourage you to think about this. in nixon it did go to the courts and nixon lost. and that was the reason nixon resigned. he resigned a few days after the supreme court ruled against him in that critical case. but in that case, the court recognized there are executive privilege arguments that can be made. it didn t say you had no right coming to us, don t darken our doorstep again. it said we ve heard your arguments, we ve heard congress s arguments and you know what? you lose. turn over the material to congress. what that did for the judiciary is it gave this body legitimacy. it wasn t the rodino extreme