Donald J. Trump has set a new standard for language used by government officials. Profanity laden trash talk is now a perfectly acceptable form of communication for government officials who work in the Executive Branch, at least its acceptable for the President, its not too clear whether other officials will enjoy the same freedom to vent in such course language. I don’t believe there is any Federal or State law that specifically regulates the language government employees are allowed to use.

Imagine if the other branches of government followed suit and began incorporating trash talk and slang into their official functions. Picture Congress deciding that legislation should be written in street slang instead of dense legalese that only lawyers can fully understand. After all, most members of Congress don’t actually draft the laws themselves. They rely on teams of attorneys who spend their days carefully crafting statutory language designed to withstand decades of litigation, appeals, and law review articles.

Suppose they decided to change the wording of the most popular criminal law used by the Department of Justice, Title 18 USC Sec. 1343, conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The Feds can “indict a ham sandwich” with this law, in the words of Alan Dershowitz. If Donald Trump worked as an employee in the United States Capital working under a Congressman or Senator, these are the words, in bold, that he could presumably add to this criminal statute: “Whoever, having devised any f*cked up scheme or artifice to f*ck over someone, defraud or for obtaining money by means of false or fraudulent f*ckin’ promises, transmits or causes to be f*ckin’ transmitted by means of f*ckin’ wire communication in interstate commerce, any writings, for the purpose of executing such f*cked up scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or locked up like a f*ckin’ animal in a f*ckin’ cage not more than 20 years, or both, you f*ckin’ lowlife loser piece of sh*t.

Judges would have to interpret what Congress meant by the term “f*cked up scheme.” Supreme Court arguments will have to engage in a debate over what constitutes “locking someone up like an animal in a f*ckin’ cage” in a statutory context. Imagine oral argument before the Supreme Court of the United States: Justice: “Counsel, when Congress used the phrase ‘”locking someone up like an animal in a f*ckin’ cage” did it intend to literally mean locking someone up like animal? What kind of animal? An animal locked up in the Bronx zoo? The monkey house at the zoo? The penguin tank? Counsel: “Your Honor, our position is that the legislative history meant locking someone up in a crate like a pet dog or cat half the day and then taking him out at night to live comfortably in a well furnished house, where the guards would pet his back and scratch his neck.”

If you have a tip, story idea, suggested correction, or would like help brainstorming a legal issue you are dealing with, you can reach me at: larrylokshen@gmail.com.

If you have sensitive information you would prefer not to send by email, please reach out to arrange another method for sharing it.

Donate