Summary of "Lawfare Daily: Bribery and the Second Trump Administration with John Keller"

Release Date: July 11, 2025
Host: The Lawfare Institute

Introduction

In this episode of The Lawfare Podcast, host James Pierce engages in a comprehensive discussion with John Keller, a legal expert and former prosecutor, focusing on allegations of bribery within the second Trump administration. The conversation delves into three primary case studies: Paramount Global's $16 million settlement with former President Trump, law firms' provision of pro bono services to the administration, and the dismissal of New York City Mayor Eric Adams' prosecution.

Understanding Bribery: Legal Principles

Defining Bribery

John Keller begins by outlining the fundamental elements of bribery under U.S. federal law. He explains that bribery typically involves:

1. Something of Value (Quid): This can be money or any item that holds value to a public official.
2. Official Action (Quo): The public official must perform an official act in exchange.
3. Corrupt Intent: There must be a specific intent to engage in a corrupt exchange.

Keller emphasizes the importance of demonstrating a clear link between the provided value and the official action to establish corrupt intent. He articulates, “Bribery is those three elements plus... the government has to prove that the defendant was acting with corrupt intent” (06:31).

Official Act Clarified

Further dissecting the elements, Keller references the McDonnell v. United States case to clarify what constitutes an "official act." He states that an official act involves a "pending question or matter" and a "meaningful and relatively circumscribed decision or action" by the public official (07:16).

Case Study 1: Paramount Global's $16 Million Settlement

Facts of the Case

Paramount Global, amidst a pending merger with Skydance Media awaiting FCC approval, settled a lawsuit filed by former President Trump for $16 million. Trump alleged that a 60 Minutes interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris was deceptively edited to portray her unfavorably ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

Keller outlines the scenario: “Paramount agreed to settle your frivolous lawsuit for $16 million” in exchange for favorable treatment regarding the FCC merger (24:02).

Potential Bribery Elements

Keller discusses the possibility of this settlement being a quid pro quo for FCC approval, noting the circumstantial evidence such as the timing of the settlement coinciding with the merger approval (24:43). He suggests that prosecutors might argue the $16 million settlement was intended to influence the FCC's decision.

Defense Arguments

Switching roles, Keller presents the defense perspective, emphasizing the lack of direct evidence linking the settlement to the FCC approval. He asserts, “Without the linkage, you can’t have an intent to engage in a quid pro quo” (30:44). He highlights that the settlement was "open and notorious," involving legal counsel, making corrupt intent difficult to prove.

Case Study 2: Law Firms' Pro Bono Services

Overview of Law Firm Deals

The discussion shifts to law firms, such as Paul Weiss, providing pro bono legal services valued up to $40 million in exchange for the administration rescinding or refraining from issuing executive orders targeting them. These arrangements appear to fit the bribery framework with clear quid pro quo elements.

Analysis of Bribery Elements

Keller acknowledges the presence of something of value and official action but points out a critical distinction: the benefits were institutional rather than personal to President Trump. He explains, “It has to be a benefit to him personally. It can’t be an institutional benefit” (48:02).

Constitutional and Legal Challenges

Referencing United States v. Blagojevich, Keller notes that broad applications of bribery laws could criminalize routine political negotiations. He argues that without demonstrating personal benefit to the official, the case does not meet the legal threshold for bribery (43:32).

Case Study 3: Dismissal of Eric Adams' Prosecution

Scenario Details

In February of the same year, the prosecution of Eric Adams, Mayor of New York City, was dismissed. Allegations suggested this dismissal was in exchange for Adams furthering the administration's immigration agenda.

Bribery Assessment

Keller compares this to the law firm deals, stating that the benefit to Adams was aligned with institutional goals rather than providing a personal advantage to President Trump. He references the Blagojevich case again to underscore that such political negotiations do not fall under bribery (53:39).

Legal Analysis and Challenges

Presidential Prosecution Limitations

A significant portion of the discussion revolves around whether a sitting or former president can be prosecuted for bribery. Keller notes the Department of Justice's stance against prosecuting a sitting president, citing longstanding opinions and the absence of a definitive Supreme Court ruling (14:09). He concedes that prosecuting a former president presents its own set of challenges, especially when actions are tied to official duties.

Linkage and Intent in Bribery Cases

Keller emphasizes the necessity of proving a direct link between the value provided and the official action taken. In both the Paramount and law firm cases, the lack of explicit communication tying the benefits to specific official actions undermines the prosecution's case for corrupt intent.

Alternative Remedies and Broader Implications

Beyond Criminal Prosecution

When criminal prosecution proves unfeasible, Keller advocates for alternative measures:

• Ethical Standards: Highlighting the ethical implications and encouraging adherence to higher standards within institutions.
• Legislative Action: Calling for congressional oversight and potential legislative reforms to address systemic issues.
• Judicial Checks: Utilizing the judiciary to strike down unconstitutional executive actions.
• Political Accountability: Leveraging electoral processes to remove officials perceived as engaging in misconduct.

Keller states, “I just think it's important to be judicious, especially with the application of criminal statutes” (62:44), stressing that not all misconduct should be addressed through criminal means to avoid undermining constitutional protections.

Conclusion

The episode offers a nuanced exploration of what constitutes bribery within high-stakes political and corporate environments. John Keller provides a balanced perspective, acknowledging the ethical and prudential concerns surrounding the actions discussed while highlighting the stringent legal requirements necessary for a bribery prosecution. The conversation underscores the complexity of tackling public corruption, especially when it intersects with political negotiations and institutional benefits.

Notable Quotes:

• John Keller: “Bribery is those three elements plus... the government has to prove that the defendant was acting with corrupt intent.” (06:31)

• John Keller: “Without the linkage, you can’t have an intent to engage in a quid pro quo.” (30:44)

• John Keller: “It has to be a benefit to him personally. It can’t be an institutional benefit.” (48:02)

• John Keller: “I just think it's important to be judicious, especially with the application of criminal statutes.” (62:44)

This summary encapsulates the critical discussions from the podcast, providing listeners and readers with a comprehensive understanding of the legal intricacies surrounding allegations of bribery in the Trump administration's second term.