Page:Impeachment of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States — Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives.pdf/131

 official functions include the duty to "receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers." By receiving ambassadors and foreign heads of state under that authority, the President recognizes the legitimacy of their governments. Furthermore, an official diplomatic visit by a head of state is an extensive governmental undertaking. During the type of visit sought here (an official "working" visit ), the visiting official is typically hosted at Blair House for several days, during which time the official meets with the President and attends a working luncheon at the White House, along with the Secretary of State. Such engagements usually involve weeks of preparation and agenda-setting, at the end of which significant new policy initiatives may be announced.

For these reasons, it is beyond question that official White House visits constitute a "formal exercise of governmental power" within the meaning of McDonnell. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the former governor of Virginia did not perform "official acts" when he arranged meetings and hosted events for a benefactor. There, however, the actions in question were frequent and informal in nature. Official diplomatic visits to the White House, by contrast, are conducted pursuant to the President's express Article II authority, involve significant use of government resources, and entail extensive preparation. Indeed, the visiting official must even obtain a special kind of visa—a process that itself involves the performance of an official act.

The context addressed by the Supreme Court in McDonnell also bears emphasis. The governor in that case "referred thousands of constituents to meetings with members of his staff and other government officials" and routinely hosted events for state businesses. His arrangement of meetings was commonplace and casual, and the Court expressed deep concern about "chill[ing] federal officials' interactions with the people they serve" by bringing those interactions within the scope of anti-bribery laws. The context here could not be more different, and there is no risk that applying anti-bribery laws to this context would chill diplomatic relations. Foreign nationals are already prohibited from donating to United States political campaigns —or, for that matter, from giving any sorts of "presents" or "emoluments" to the President or other officials without Congress's express consent. Application of anti-bribery laws in this context—i.e., making it unlawful for the President to exchange official diplomatic visits for personal benefits—is therefore consistent with and compelled by the plain text of federal law.