A telling detail
December 19, 2007
How much can be read into this anecdote about the Clintons campaigning together in Des Moines yesterday:
On the way out of the store, a woman asked Bill to sign a greenback. Bill obliged, while pointing out “this isn’t legal” to the amusement of folks standing nearby.
A few minutes later, the same request was made to the senator, who said that she couldn’t do it. “I can’t sign money. That’s illegal. I’m so sorry,” she said.
Heh.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Exactly what can be read into it?
December 19th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
And of course, they’re both wrong. defacing money is only illegal if done to defraud.
December 19th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Scott: yes, exactly. It’s much easier to ask a rhetorical question than it is to deconstruct the way media narratives can pigeon-hole candidates and frame campaigns. Plus, it is a pretty funny story.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 17 - COINS AND CURRENCY
§ 333. Mutilation of national bank obligations
“Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or
unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill,
draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking
association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System,
with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence
of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”
December 20th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
I guess that answers that: not illegal, since Bill Clinton’s signature would not cause the bill to be unfit for reissue, save for the fact that it will probably be framed instead of spent.