Saturn Devouring His Son as a Metaphor for Trump

     Saturn Devouring His Son is a painting created by Spanish painter Francisco Goya between 1819 and 1823. He painted it directly onto a wall of his dining room. 

     "Everyone ready for dinner? Let's dig in!" 

     I see it as an analogy to Trump because of the myth behind Saturn as depicted in the painting. Saturn was a Titan. He had overthrown his father and ruled the world. But a prophecy foretold the day when one of his children would overthrow him. 

     So, he ate them.

     One by one, as they were born. His wife became concerned about this behavior, so she wrapped a large stone in swaddling, and Saturn pitched it down the hatch. She hid the child, Jupiter (called Zeus by the Greeks), on an island until one day he overthrew Saturn as the prophecy foretold. 

     Trump was worried about naming his son "Junior" because he might turn into, as Trump termed it, "a loser." Trump remembered his older brother, Fred, Jr., who was also called a weak loser. Don, Jr.  spent a year after his parents' divorce not speaking to his father, on a metaphorical island. He later became inextricably intertwined in the Trump criminal empire (Trump eating him and using him as a shield to protect himself). But, as the prophecy foretold, Junior would be a loser and would one day help to overthrow his father. 

FEC Violation: Personal Use of Campaign Contributions

     The Forbes article also noted that there was an unspecified and unexplained $90,000.00 payment the Trump campaign made to the Trump corporation for legal expenses. Did that money go to pay for legal expenses or did it end up in Trump's pocket. This is something Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg will be able to testify about, and he has an immunity agreement.

     The title of this section includes "FEC Violation," but in reality, what we are dealing with are federal crimes because of the amount of money involved and the intent of the perp:

The FEC has exclusive civil enforcement jurisdiction over federal campaign finance law and is thus the primary agency dedicated to enforcing such laws. At the same time, however, the DOJ has concurrent criminal jurisdiction over more egregious campaign finance law violations. This may sound a bit confusing, but it’s really not. So, what’s the distinction?



In simple terms, it’s the difference between a mistake or negligence and a scheme or conspiracy. Both violations may result in similar outcomes but the road traveled to get there is what’s of the utmost importance. The legal standard employed to suss out the two forms of campaign finance law violations is that of willfulness.

Money Laundering

     Before getting to my speculation about the most likely Money Laundering case for the Special Prosecutor, I wanted to note a few things about Trump's history of Money Laundering in general, and the transaction with Russian Dimitry Rybolovlev in particular.

     Trump has a huge history of Money Laundering. Big. Really fabulous. According to CNN, "[t]he Trump Taj Mahal Casino broke anti-money laundering rules 106 times in the first year and a half of operation in the early 1990s." We know this is fact because there was a settlement agreement with the IRS. CNN reported:

The casino repeatedly failed to properly report gamblers who cashed out $10,000 or more in a single day, the government said. 

     At the time of that 1998 settlement between Trump and the government, the Associated Press called it the largest ever fine for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act. Then, the Trump Castle failed to report Trump's dad sending a lawyer into the casino with a $3,350,000.00 certified check and exchanged them for casino chips. The Trump Castle paid a fine for that as well.

     This proves that Trump didn't care much for Federal rules used to alert on Money Laundering, but these wouldn't prove, by themselves, that Trump was involved in Money Laundering.

     As for our friend Dimitry Rybolovlev, neither he nor his company show up in the Office of Foreign Assets Control website as a sanctioned individual or entity. It is claimed that Rybolovlev was going through the divorce at the time and may have wanted to hide assets from his spouse. That might be a crime, but did Trump know about it? That's a big assumption.

     Still, the sale is very suspicious, especially given that Rybolovlev didn't inspect the property, didn't have it appraised, paid twice market value, and has never lived in it. It could have been a Putin operation, but we don't know.

     On the other hand, we do know of somebody quite famously criminal who purchased a property from Trump using Ukrainian (nee Russian) money. That would be Paul Manafort. We also know that both Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates, have spent a lot of time being interviewed by FBI agents and testifying before grand juries.

     To prove the specialized intent of Trump to take in illegal money or evade taxes, prosecutors will likely need an informant who was there. Putin and Rybolovlev are unlikely to provide that evidence. Manafort and Gates are much likely to have done so.

     The Special Counsel's office has already proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Manafort was involved in bank fraud. Did he engage in similar fraudulent actions when purchasing his Trump Tower suite? I think that's a pretty good assumption. 

      Another potential trove of evidence can be found in Germany. Deutsche Bank paid New York a fine of $425,000,000.00 for a Money Laundering scheme that resettled $10,000,000,000.00 of Russian money. This occurred last year. Other countries have also fined the bank for similar problems in the last few years.

     Just recently, the offices of Deutsche Bank were raided.

     Finally, it has to be noted that Donald Trump, Jr. has been quoted as saying that "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets." Eric Trump explained that "We have all the funding we need out of Russia."

     We know that the Trump Organization was happy to work with (or at least closely associate with) the sanctioned Russian VEB bank. They supposedly had financing through it for the Trump Tower Moscow project. The VEB bank also provided financing for the Trump hotel in Toronto. This is important because that bank is on the sanctions list, and it is a known Money Laundering conduit for Putin and other Russian oligarchs.

   

Violations of the Emoluments Clause

     Norm Eisen of the Brookings Institute came up with a list of Trump violations of the Emoluments Clause even before Trump assumed office (but after he won the Electoral College victory):

Trump’s business partners in India are themselves connected to Indian politicians, resulting in an array of potential conflicts relating to development policy and permitting.

[S]ince his election, Mr. Trump has met in his office with developers and other business partners from the Philippines.

On a recent call with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President of Turkey, Mr. Trump went out of his way to mention that he and his daughter (who also participated in the call) both admire Mehmet Ali Yalcindag, Mr. Trump’s business associate in the Trump Towers in Istanbul.

It has been reported that Mr. Trump opposes wind farms because he has decided that they ruin the view from his golf course in Aberdeen, Scotland. Recently, Mr. Trump openly lobbied Nigel Farage—a British political ally of his—to oppose wind farms in the United Kingdom, an issue that does not otherwise appear to be of relevance to American foreign policy.

Even as Mr. Trump has delegated greater authority to his three children (Ivanka, Eric, and Donald Junior) in running the Trump Organization, he has continued to involve them in exceptionally important federal business.

Most troubling, Ivanka has participated in several meetings between Mr. Trump and foreign heads of state, including those from Turkey, Argentina, and Japan. Ivanka’s presence at Mr. Trump’s meeting with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan is especially striking, since Ivanka is currently in talks with Sanei International (whose largest shareholder is wholly owned by the Japanese government) to close a major and highly lucrative licensing deal.

Donald Junior, who plays a major role in overseeing new project acquisition and development for the Trump Organization, had a role in interviewing candidates for the position of Secretary of the Department of the Interior, whose policies can have significant consequences for foreign companies.

     It seems fantastic, but it is true that all of these violations of the Emoluments Clause occurred before Trump assumed the presidency. As President-elect, he still held an "Office of Trust" within the Government (and within the scope of the Emoluments Clause). But there are yet more:

Mere weeks before Mr. Trump spoke by phone with the President of Taiwan, dramatically altering American foreign policy, a businesswoman claiming to be associated with Mr. Trump’s conglomerate arrived in Taiwan and made inquiries about major new investments in luxury hotels.

Shortly before the election, President Duterte of the Philippines named Jose E.B. Antonio, a business partner of Mr. Trump and founder of a company behind Trump Tower Manila, as a special envoy to the United States.

After Mr. Trump spoke of banning Muslim immigrants, President Erdoğan of Turkey demanded that Mr. Trump’s name be removed from Trump Towers in Istanbul; but that demand abruptly ceased after Mr. Trump defended President Erdoğan’s brutal crackdown on Turkish dissidents.

     And there are still more. Remember, we haven't gotten to his actual tenure in office yet:

The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China—owned by the People’s Republic of China—is the single largest tenant in Trump Tower. Its valuable lease will expire, and thus come up for re-negotiation, during Mr. Trump’s presidency.

Even as debates rage over American/Russian relations and Russian cyberattacks on U.S. interests and even on the recent presidential election, it has been reported that Russian financiers play a significant (albeit concealed) role in Mr. Trump’s organization.

Mr. Trump’s businesses owe hundreds of millions to Deutsche Bank, which is currently negotiating a multi-billion-dollar settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice, a settlement that will now be overseen by an Attorney General and many other appointees selected by and serving at the pleasure of Mr. Trump.

Federal prosecutors in Brazil are in the middle of a sensitive (and now politically-freighted) criminal investigation into whether two pension funds that invested in the Trump Hotel in Rio de Janeiro were bribed to do so.

In Ireland, Mr. Trump wants to build a wall that would protect a coastline near his Trump International Golf Links course. Environmentalists, however, worry about an endangered species: the vertigo angustior snail. This fight will go to a national planning board, which may now find itself enmeshed in treacherous international politics relating to Mr. Trump.

     Before you get to the dusty boring end of this material, we have a surprise in store for you There's a second Emoluments clause. And guess what Trump is doing? If you guessed that he is likely violating it, you win. This is also in the Constitution:

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

     This is from Slate:

Public pension funds in at least seven U.S. states have invested millions of dollars in an investment fund that owns a New York hotel and pays one of President Donald Trump’s companies to run it, according to a Reuters review of public records. …

The Trump SoHo Hotel and Condominium in Manhattan is an upscale 46-story property owned by a Los Angeles investment group, the CIM Group, through one of its real estate funds. The possible problem for Trump lies in the fact that state- and city-run pension funds have invested in the CIM fund and pay it a few million dollars in quarterly fees to manage their investments in its portfolio, which includes the Trump SoHo, according to state investment records.

Tax Evasion

     One issue that will have to be dealt with is the statute of limitations. For example, Trump declared a loss of $916,000,000.00 in 1995. Is that actionable in a criminal prosecution? Perhaps not because of the statute of limitations. 

     The general rule is that the IRS will not audit a tax return after three years. However, they can go up to six years if the fraud is significant. That would still do us no good, as the effective statute of limitations would have expired in 2001. 

     Yet, there is hope.

     Is there any chance that that 1995 loss amount was not inflated to allow Trump to take continuing deductions over the years thereafter? That would be a continuing crime. In 2005, he supposedly made $150,000,000.00 but likely paid nothing in taxes … because of the earlier crime. Thus, if Trump was still deducting in 2012 for losses in 1995--and I suspect he was--then he can be prosecuted for the tax fraud that occurred originally in 1995. 

     On a related note, the New York Attorney General has referred potential charges to the IRS regarding taxation of the money misused by the Trump Foundation charity. 

     Finally, even if there are no crimes a prosecutor can bring related to Tax Evasion or Tax Fraud, the IRS can still institute a civil recovery of evaded taxes. 

VIOLATIONS OF U.S. SANCTIONS

     With regard to Alexander Torshin, it is known that he provided funds to the NRA, the NRA provided an unprecedented amount of funds to the Trump campaign, and that Torshin and Donald Trump, Jr. met at the 2016 NRA national conference. We assume this wasn't one big coincidence.

     Moreover, it is undisputed that the NRA and the Trump Campaign used the same buyer, placing advertisements on television and social media. It is assumed by that that they coordinated their campaigns to elect Trump.

     VTB is a large Russian bank closely allied to Putin that agreed to finance Trump Tower Moscow. VTB bank was and still is a U.S. sanctioned entity. Although bank officials have recently tried to deny the seriousness of the endeavor, after Michael Cohen and Felix Sater had obtained a licensing agreement to build the property, this happened:

Two days later, Sater told Cohen that their invitations and visas were being arranged by VTB Bank, and that Kostin, the bank’s powerful president and chairman, would meet Cohen in Moscow. Key to getting VTB on board was the former GRU spy; Sater told congressional and special counsel investigators that the former spy said he had a source at VTB Bank who would support the deal.

      When you go through the simple search mechanism at the Office of Foreign Asset Control's website and search for the name "VTB," you get many responses, all of them sanctioned. Here is a screengrab:

     A search of the same OFAC website for the name "Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps" turns up another large list of sanctioned entities. That's important because the people the Trump Organization dealt with in building a hotel in Baku, Azerbaijan were associated with that group. 
    
     The assumption in all of these crimes is that Trump or somebody in the Trump Organization did the most simple due diligence to determine if they were doing business with sanctioned individuals or entities. For the hotel in Baku, there is the assumption that Trump or somebody in the Trump Organization knew where the money was coming from to complete this giant building:

Campaign Finance Violations

     The Trump defense regarding the payments to McDougal and Clifford has been a goal-post shifting one, moving from complete denial to fake news to these are not crimes. Rudy Giuliani has claimed that these were "personal transactions" and therefore not covered by campaign finance laws.

     Significantly, the McDougal payment was for an affair that supposedly occurred in 2006, almost ten years before the payment.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

     Trump's take on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is significant, I think, for a number of reasons. Trump did not obey good laws. How likely was he to obey "horrible" laws? Moreover, it goes to show how he would do business as a politician himself. He understood the Pay-to-Play model, and with his new role as a government official, it would be more likely for him to be the recipient of official bribes. But these are all assumptions.
     Trump owns (or has licensed his name to) properties around the world, including golf courses in Ireland, Scotland and Dubai. The United Kingdom is also very strict when it comes to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, so I would not expect too much bribery and graft there. In Dubai?
     Trump owns (or more likely has licensed and perhaps has management agreements) for hotel properties in Canada, Turkey, Panama, South Korea, United Arab Emirates and India. Then, there's the Trump property in Baku, Azerbaijan:

Trump’s business has also come under public scrutiny regarding the FCPA. The New Yorker reported on March 6 that the Trump Organization had helped build a hotel in Azerbaijan owned by the family of a cabinet minister with ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which the US government has accused of money-laundering and terrorism. Though it’s not clear if the deal itself violated the FCPA, in order to avoid breaking the law, US companies usually extensively investigate potential partners for corruption. One lawyer told the New Yorker, “I’ve had very few clients do so little due diligence” as the Trump Organization did.

     We lack any evidence to claim that there are criminal violations associated with these properties, but warning flags are waving furiously.

Pay-to-Play

     Important questions are raised by Heather Digby Parton at Salon.com include the following: “The question is, who else was paying and for what? And where is all that money?”

     We now know there was also the Ukraine. Michael Cohen accepted $400,000 from “intermediaries acting for Ukraine's leader, Petro Poroshenko.” The Ukrainian President wanted a face-to-face meeting with Trump. He got it. Shortly thereafter, the Ukraine stopped its investigation into Paul Manafort. From CNBC:

AT&T is in the midst of pursuing an $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner. The U.S. Justice Department has sued to block that deal.

In a report on Cohen's company, Avenatti's law firm said that Novartis in late 2017 and early 2018 made four separate payments to Essential Consultants totaling nearly $400,000.

"Following these payments, reports surfaced that Mr. Trump took a dinner with the incoming CEO of Novartis before Mr. Trump's speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in late January 2018," Avenatti's report said.

That CEO, Vas Narasimhan, was joined with a group of other companies' executives at that dinner.

      Even if Trump didn’t initially know about the payments to Cohen if he found about them later and attempted to cover it up we’re back to obstruction of justice and misprision of felony. We'll get to misprision a felony later. 

Extortion

    There are a number of Federal cases that provide that what Defendant Zinke did was illegal. See United States v. Zemek, 634 F.3d 1159, 1174 (9th Cir. 1980) (the right to make business decisions and to solicit business free from wrongful coercion). There are cases that also involve interference in the operation of unions.

    Senator Murkowski wants to lawfully go about her business—to vote on legislation the way she wants to vote on legislation—but Defendant Trump is attempting to force her to give up that right (i.e. extort her) with threats that would cause damage.  

    Think about it this way:

Imagine if Chris Christie's Chief of Staff called up the Mayor of that quaint little town across the Hudson River from New York and said, "Endorse the Governor, or we will shut down traffic in your town." On top of that, imagine that there were witnesses to the exchange, Christie didn’t deny the allegation, and another mayor received the same threat.

    This isn’t Juarez or Mogadishu or Nicosia. People, yes, even legislators, have to be able to act freely here, without fear of coercion.

Evidence

     Two Senators from Alaska—Republican Senators at that—would provide the critical testimony to back up the charges. Additionally, there would be evidence of Defendant Zinke’s relationship with Defendant Trump. For example, this might be Exhibit “A,” a picture taken just two days before the Extortion:

     We probably need phone logs or emails to tie Defendant Zinke’s actions to Defendant Trump. It is not impossible to believe that Defendant Zinke acted alone, but I see that as unlikely. Not impossibly unlikely, but very possibly unlikely. But that is an assumption. 

Treason

     Somebody could argue that a foreign power, which had attempted to manipulate free elections in this country, is not an enemy, but that would be a laughable argument. Moreover, until very recently, the United States and the Russian Federation were involved in a proxy war in Syria. No matter what white-gloved diplomacy is ongoing, there has been a "hot war" in Syria between the two nations.

     Russian mercenaries attacked a U.S. base in Deir Ezzor. Hundreds of the Russian mercenaries, who have been directly connected to Putin in a couple of ways, were killed by American air strikes. America also bombed a Syrian airbase with 50 Tomahawk missiles in April 2017 with damage to Russian planes. To counter this move, Putin sent a warship to bolster Assad's air defense capabilities against the United States.

     The Russian Federation supported Assad, while the United States supported certain rebel factions which sought to oust Assad. Russia manipulated the American election, and one cannot forget Putin's big show about nuking Florida:

     I have seen so-called treason experts cite "Treason Law" for the proposition that the United States must be at war with a country before a charge of treason can be levied. I have attempted to find this treason law, and it doesn't exist. This is likely due to the fact that there have been so few Treason charges brought.     

     The charge of Treason levied on Adam Gadahn in 2006 seems the most analogous. Al Qaeda was an obvious enemy of the United States, yet there was no formal Declaration of War against it, and it is not, in fact, a country. The difference between Al Qaeda on 9/11 and Russia in 2016 is that the former used airplanes to attack the United States; Russia used the internet and complicit, treasonous Republicans. 

Other Evidence of Treason

     In April 2016, Defendant presents a speech in which he promises “an easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia.” Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak is in the audience. 

     In July 2016, Defendant and Carter Page met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the Republican National Convention immediately before the party platform was changed from pro-Ukraine to pro-Russian Federation. 

     In January 2017, the Trump administration began secretly to ease or eliminate sanctions against Russia. Chief Investigative Reporter, Michael Isikoff broke the story:

In the early weeks of the Trump administration, former Obama administration officials and State Department staffers fought an intense, behind-the-scenes battle to head off efforts by incoming officials to normalize relations with Russia, according to multiple sources familiar with the events.

Unknown to the public at the time, top Trump administration officials, almost as soon as they took office, tasked State Department staffers with developing proposals for the lifting of economic sanctions, the return of diplomatic compounds and other steps to relieve tensions with Moscow.

These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation for Russia’s intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block the move, the sources said.

     In July 2017, Defendant announced that the United States would no longer assist Syrian rebels in their efforts to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. 

Miscellanea 

     There is a statute that codifies the crime of Treason as set out in the Constitution. It tracks the language and sets punishment at a very costly level. A convicted traitor

shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years   and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

     Although there is nothing but opinion that requires the House of Representatives to refrain from including a Treason count in their Articles of Impeachment, this does not mean that Trump cannot raise this split of opinion as some kind of affirmative defense at the trial. Moreover, even if Trump's attorneys succeeded in that regard, it could still be argued that application of the Treason Clause to this particular circumstance is "a reasonable extension of existing law."

     The best argument that can be made to exclude Russia from our enemies list is that the two countries have cooperated together on a number of endeavors, including sending astronauts to the International Space Station. However, the fact remains that lives have been lost in a war in Syria that continues.

     Finally, it would be the height of arrogance for Trump to claim that Russia is not an enemy of the United States because he has been the one bending over backwards for Putin. That would be remindful of the child who killed his parents and then begged for mercy because he was an orphan. 

Obstruction of Justice

     Here is a transcript of the Lester Holt interview:

     Later in the interview, the Defendant admitted that there were pending proceedings, assisted by Director Comey, which involved multiple investigations of Defendant’s campaign:

    Per the terms of the statute, the Defendant obstructed and impeded the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States. Nothing else is needed to prove Obstruction of Justice.

     There is a split of authority on the issue of whether an FBI investigation is considered a "proceeding" under the statute. However, as noted above in the quote from the Lester Holt interview, Trump was aware that there were House and Senate investigation and that Comey had testified in both. However the House of Representatives wishes to charge this, there was an Obstruction of Justice, and it is proved by confession. 

     The firing of McCabe would be another count, and there is undoubtedly more. Although each tweet and each interview is not a separate count, each personnel action taken to hamper the investigation, each instruction to refuse to comply, and each dangled pardon would be. 

EMBEZZLEMENT/CHARITY FRAUD

     President Nixon had a slush fund that was tied to his Committee to Re-Elect the President ("CREEP"). For years, Trump's slush fund has been his charity. There are at least a dozen, possibly more than two dozen separate violations of New York embezzlement laws that could be part of any articles of impeachment.

     “Under the Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3), charitable organizations may be exempt from federal income taxes due to the important service these organizations provide. Donations to qualifying non-profit or charitable organizations may also be considered tax deductible.”

     Everything for Trump goes back to tax fraud.

     “Penalties for charity scams vary depending upon the methods used to improperly obtain funds, whether money was laundered or false statements were made on tax returns, and the amount of money that was embezzled or stolen. Defendants accused of involvement with charity scams could be charged with Internet crimes, mail fraud, wire fraud,  embezzlement, tax fraud, and theft.   Many of these crimes carry lengthy prison terms."

     In New York, the statute of limitations for embezzlement is six years or two years after the fraud has been discovered. In a case involving a supposed president, it can be argued that the statute of limitation is tolled while he's in office. 

New York: Embezzlement Laws and Sentencing Guidelines

     Embezzlement is codified as follows in the New York Penal Code:

§155.05 Larceny Defined

1.  A  person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or  to a  third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such from an owner thereof.

§155.05 (2)(a) – Embezzlement

 2. Larceny includes a wrongful taking, obtaining  or  withholding  of another person’s  property,  with  the  intent prescribed in subdivision one of this section, committed in any of the following ways:

(a) By conduct heretofore defined or known as common law  larceny  by trespassory taking,  common  law  larceny  by  trick,  embezzlement, or obtaining property by false pretenses.

EMBEZZLEMENT PENALTIES

    Larceny like many other charges has different levels and in the case of embezzlement the level of the crime is determined by the value of the property taken.  For instance if the amount is beyond one thousand dollars this will be fourth degree, a Class E Felony, and conversely if the amount is above one million dollars it will first degree larceny which is a Class B Felony.

   The penalties for embezzlement also get tougher with the degree of the crime.  Grand larceny from Class E to Class B felonies can carry jail time of 3 years up to 24 years in addition to fines which the court may impose.

   Like other forms of larceny, embezzlement carries some severe penalties with high fines and restitution added on to jail time.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

     This is the long answer to whether an impeachable offense can occur prior to one's being elected or appointed to a federal office. There is no doubt that those offenses can be investigated. The Bill Clinton investigations are the obvious precedent. However, there has also been precedent for impeaching a federal official for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" that occurred before the official took office.
     The following is from the Congressional Research Service, which is the public policy research arm of Congress. The report was prepared in 2015. It generally discussed impeachment, and it particularly discussed our question.

Impeachment for Behavior Prior to Assuming Office

Most impeachments have concerned behavior occurring while an individual is in a federal office. However, some have addressed, at least in part, conduct before individuals assumed their positions.

…

Judge G. Thomas Porteous, in contrast, is the first individual to be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate based in part upon conduct occurring before he began his tenure in federal office. Articles I and II each alleged misconduct beginning while he was a state court judge as well as misconduct while he was a federal judge. Article IV alleged that Judge Porteous made false statements to the Senate and FBI in connection with his nomination and confirmation to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On December 8, 2010, he was convicted on all four articles, removed from office, and disqualified from holding future federal offices.

     As you can see, there is precedent for not only including prior offenses in articles of impeachment, but in finding the defendant guilty. Besides this precedent, there are also the words of Alexander Hamilton, who described impeachable offenses as relating "chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." Stealing from a Charity is injurious to society itself.
     Remember, the House of Representatives is not limited to issuing articles of impeachment based only on the report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. They can expand the charges as they see fit.

BRIBERY

     The standard Federal bribery law (18 U.S.C. 201) is most concerned with the bribery of federal officials. That particular statute might be unavailable to prosecute Trump for bribing a Florida state official. But see, Dixson v. United States, 465 U.S. 482 (1984). However, 18 U.S.C. § 666 is available because it specifically deals with state officials, as long as the state official works for a state agency or division of government that accepts at least $10,000.00 or more in Federal grant, loan, contract or insurance funds.
     The penalty for a violation of this act could include a fine and up to ten years of prison. Campaign donations are especially ripe for corruption, but they also raise a free speech issue, so Federal appellate courts have recently narrowed the scope of bribery official acts and what is needed to prove corrupt intent.
     In McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. ____ (2016), the Supreme Court held that a public official can make a phone call or set up meetings for a constituent without it amounting to bribery. This is distinguishable from the facts in the Trump case because deciding whether or not to pursue criminal charges is possibly the most important official act an attorney general can take.
     In McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991), the Supreme Court held that there must be proof of an agreement for a quid pro quo. This was an extortion case brought under the Hobbs Act, so it may not be as relevant as Trump attorneys would like.

Of Special Interest …

     Nobody has filed criminal charges against Trump or Bondi (or Greg Abbott, who received a similar donation from Trump and later decided not to pursue charges against Trump University). However, there has been some action:

In September 2016, the IRS concluded that the donation to Bondi's PAC violated laws against political contributions from nonprofit organizations, and ordered Donald Trump to pay a fine for the illegal contribution. Trump also reimbursed the foundation the sum that had been donated to Bondi. Neither Bondi nor her PAC were fined or criminally charged for soliciting and accepting an illegal donation. 

     Bondi was term-limited out from running again for Florida Attorney General, but she curiously did not seek any other elected office. In August of this year, Bondi hosted the Fox News show The Five for three days. Fox claimed that they received pre-approval from a Florida Commission on Ethics, but a spokesperson for the Commission said that "no opinion was rendered."