George Washington Law Professor Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy speculates that the couple is likely to be hit with a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1036: “Entry by false pretenses to any real property, vessel, or aircraft of the United States or secure area of any airport or seaport.”

That could be coupled with trespass charges and charges for whatever misrepresentation was involved in their sneaking into the dinner. 18 U.S.C. § 1001, notes Kerr, would be one good option, as it’s so broad that it essentially criminalizes lying to the federal government. The law goes after:

Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully–
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years . . .

The Salahis will presumably try to get around all that by saying they didn’t actually lie but somehow just left the impression that they were on the president’s guest list. I still think it’ll be tough to get around section (1) of that law, and Kerr explains how the various charges could all be bundled together to make one big fat felony.

Even if the exact criminal violations remain unclear, Kerr notes one thing that’s evident at this point: “Crashing a White House state dinner, and then bragging about it on Facebook, is really really dumb.”

What’s more, five days after ago, Human Rights Watch put out a statement criticizing a Saudi law for insufficiently protecting the rights of domestic workers. At Opinio Juris, Kevin Jon Heller has a post compiling a number of additional criticisms of Saudi Arabia on a variety of human rights fronts. And while in Saudia Arabia in May, Whitson says she spent much of her four day trip researching information the group acquired about women’s rights in the kingdom. Curious positions to take if Human Rights Watch is bought and paid for.

If you read closely, the Journal piece, by David Bernstein, doesn’t actually come out and accuse Human Rights Watch of raising money from the Saudi government — merely raising money from people in Saudi Arabia, as if that is itself problematic. Whitson posted a reply on that point in Bernstein’s comments:

What’s really at the heart of Mr. Bernstein’s gripe is his misconception that efforts to raise support among Saudis are unseemly because, well, if they live in a totalitarian country, they must be bad people too. Human Rights Watch accepts funding from private individuals and foundations the world over, which we never allow to affect the independence of our work. We are proud to have a Saudi on the Middle East Advisory Committee and look forward to building an even stronger support base throughout the region.
Support from citizens of Arab countries for the work of Human Rights Watch – including our vocal, public criticism of rights violations by their governments – is something to be applauded, not denigrated. Believe it or not, some Arabs believe in human rights too.