- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion
- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion
You must log in or register to comment.
This is quid pro quo being ruled as NOT bribery because it comes to the person on the backside of the favor. This is almost certainly to do with the majority of the court recently being outed about the amount of high value
bribesgifts/vacations they are getting from “friends”.“We realized that people now knew the things we constantly do that are wrong, so we made them not wrong anymore.”
“We’ve investigated ourselves and found no evidence of wrongdoing”
This is almost certainly to do with the majority of the court recently being outed about the amount of high value bribes gifts/vacations they are getting from “friends”.
Nah, this is a long running theme. In chronological order-
Sun Diamond Growers - The government must prove the bribe is actually connected to the act.
Skilling - Corruption charges require a second party to give you a bribe or kickback, self dealing is fine.
Citizens United - Money is political speech, and you can spend as much as you want on an election.
McDonnell - Acting as a pay to play gatekeeper is fine. Even if the government connects the bribe to the act.
Ted Cruz - Politicians can keep unspent campaign funds as long as they maintain the fiction of having lent the campaign money.
Snyder - Kickbacks aren’t actionable. <- We are here.
Holy fuck! As if Citizens United wasn’t bad enough. Our government is fully for sale now.
Same as it ever was.
… but worse!
And you may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile. And you may ask yourself, “Well, how did I get here?”
Thanks to the Supreme Court, that’s how
Same as it ever was!
Same as it ever was.
Same as it ever was?
So that means that I can engage in a a little tax evasion, as a treat, right?
On a serious note, from the article:
the law makes it a very serious crime, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, for a federal official to accept a bribe
Can we start actually enforcing this please?
Define bribe and you’ll start to see where enforcing this becomes a problem. Especially with legalized corruption in the form of lobbying and ‘gifts’.
Well, federal officials are already forbidden from accepting gifts/anything valued more than $25 in one instance, and no more than $100 a year from any one group or person. Enforcing that seems like a good place to start.
Billionaires can just make a coupon thousand shell orgs to funnel $100ks into their pockets.
Legislators, executives, and jurists aren’t officials in the sense you mean. They are referring to government employees, who can still receive every joyful punishment a prosecutor can dream of.
Well, perhaps the wording should be amended to encompass all public employees. But that would require the law be rewritten by the people that benefit from it, so, yeah.
Can we start actually enforcing this please?
No. You can’t bind the rich.
So is the difference “I’ll give you money to do this thing” versus “I’ll give you money if you do this thing”?
They both sound like bribes to me. Money, goods, or services are just handed over at different times.
I fucking hate these people. No shame. No morals. No humanity.
My interpretation of the article is that it’s a question of timing. If you offer me money in order to hook you up, that’s a bribe. But if I hook you up and later you give me money in thanks, that’s not a bribe.
Obviously both of them are corrupt. But apparently this law can only target the former.
No see the first one is a bribe, the second one is a job. I’m paying you for your time! /s
That was actually the argument made by the official in question. Called it a “consulting fee”.
I should’ve been a consultant. I could have a few yachts by now…my country would be destroyed, but at least I could be in my own little world.
It’s a kickback. They just made kickbacks completely legal.
The way I read all of this and th decision is that they are saying that this law specifically only applies to bribery. They define it as a quid quo pro in advance of an act.
In this particular case, you can’t charge the guy with bribery because it doesn’t meet the definition.
That doesn’t mean a “tip after the fact” isn’t corrupt. That doesn’t mean that’s not in violation of some other law. It’s saying that you can’t apply this law to this case. This court is threading a fucking needle in an attempt to make this a state issue and say the Fed law can’t apply.
Justice Jackson’s dissent is amazing though:
Snyder’s absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s Court could love."
The Court’s reasoning elevates nonexistent federalism concerns over the plain text of this statute and is a quintessential example of the tail wagging the dog," Jackson added.
Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions. Greed makes governments—at every level—less responsive, less efficient, and less trustworthy from the perspective of the communities they serve,"
SCOTUS has routinely bent over backwards to protect politicians from corruption and bribery charges though so the message is clear. You cannot charge a politician with bribery except in extreme circumstances. Like them being a democrat.
“At every level” she’s making specific reference to a specific certain level in the US judicial system here… Some pretty good, brave activism three - good luck getting your mom a house from a billionaire now Justice Jackson
Your comment is nonsensical. Format that shit. And wtf, are you saying Judge Jackson is corrupt as well? You are making no sense.
Their formatting was dog dukey, but I was still able to parse what they were saying fairly easily. They’re saying “good job judge Jackson. Too bad you won’t be able to get a free house from insert evil billionaire here (/s)”. While I agree with your sentiment, the way you go about pointing these things out can backfire, if done with a rude tone, such as the way you chose to do it. There you go; an unsolicited constructive criticism for an unsolicited constructive criticism. :)
I like you better than yourr brother James.
typically payments made to an official after an official act as a token of appreciation
Am I taking crazy pills or is this asshole just literally saying here that it’s okay to be corrupt?
Don’t worry, it’s only okay if the payment is made after the act is carried out. Everyone knows that corruption follows a strict order of operations, which if broken, means it’s not corruption anymore!
It removes one of the angles that made attempting to bribe someone risky: they could just take the bribe but then do what they were going to do anyways. Can’t really retaliate legally without admitting you tried to bribe someone and if they told anyone about it in private, then there’s a good chance that motive will come out if the official ends up dead.
But now the whole process is going to be the official does the act and it’s the briber’s choice if they follow through.
bro i thought this was an onion post for a second what the fuck just happened
Just yet ANOTHER consequence of Trump’s first term…
unfortunately you may be right, but the onion also has a very specific type of title that they write out, and this was pretty close.
i love how the standard went from “the appearance of impropriety” to “you know what, just leave the money on the counter”.
NOT THAT COUNTER!!! That is the bribe counter! You put it NEXT the bribe counter so nobody gets the wrong idea.
No that’s fine too, we’ll just blow up the journalist and bury the story. #PanamaPapers
Haha, what a silly Onion article!
:checks URL:
Oh. Oh no.
Welcome to
Russiapost-Covid world
Bro… Fuck this country.
Saw the title, figured it couldn’t be that bad. Read the article. It is that bad.
Then they at the end they give that know an extra twist by specifically mentioning two justices notorious for receiving substantial
bribesrewards who didn’t feel the need to recuse themselves.That’s exactly what I did too. I was like “they’ve gotta be exaggerating.” Nope, not at all. Ffs
Its just out in the open. Corruption on full blast.
Haha, yeh.
I didn’t think they could weaken it any further, you already had to get caught on tape exchanging money, laughing maniacally, and saying, “This is a bribe for X action.”
Now you can do that, as long as it happens after the politician delivers. That’s a kickback. It’s the fucking definition of a kickback. They gave someone a contract and the contractor then gave the contract giver a large sum of money.
If they ever flip back to a Democrat majority, it’s going to take decades to undo all the damage this court has done (and they’ll still have the incentive to not undo stuff like this).
Longer than that. Democrats are pretty centrist these days, so some of this will linger on for long long time.
Joe Biden nearly got 1 food truck in to gaza from the 300 million dollar pier and one of Israel’s bomb shipments was 10 minutes late thanks to him though. That’s bringing the left and liberals together.
seems like a good thread to plug https://represent.us
they describe themselves as
RepresentUs is America’s leading nonpartisan anti-corruption organization fighting to fix our broken and ineffective government. We unite people across the political spectrum to pass laws that hold corrupt politicians accountable, defeat special interests, and force the government to meet the needs of the American people.
here’s their policy platform https://represent.us/policy-platform/
they claim to have played a part in over 185 pieces of legislation (mostly at the state level) that contributed to their core platform https://represent.us/our-wins/
here are their ongoing campaigns presented state by state https://represent.us/2024-campaigns/
nobody and no organization are perfect but I feel like most people can find something to agree on here
Politicians can legally be bribed after the fact now. Phew, what a relief.
I guess step two is to decide exactly how many hours a bribe needs to be given, before doing someone a favour, for it to just be considered a gift.
Just a reminder that bullets can be bribes.
It depends on how they’re delivered. Generally bullets are interpreted as a threat.
Vocabulary question X + shell + powder = bullet, what is X?
Because usually the threat is that X will be delivered through use of powder the destination of the shell is ambiguous but not included in the delivery.
When you deliver while (unfired) bullets it’s generally not considered a threat.
That very much depends on how the unfired bullet(s) is/are delivered. Did we leave a bullet on the lieutenant’s pillow or did we give the politician a box of the latest match grade hunting rounds with a bow on it?
