• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bribery's Legal Again

KMFJD

KMFJD

Lifer
~The final SCOTUS decision today is Snyder v. US. Kavanaugh has the court's 6-3 decision on ideological grounds, holding that the Section 666 bribery statute does not apply to "gratuities" given for public officials' *past* acts. Jackson writes the liberals' dissent.

~The mayor of Portage, Indiana, steered over $1 million in city contracts to a truck dealership, which then wrote him a $13,000 check. The conservatives on SCOTUS—with extensive experience in being lavished with gifts after favorable rulings—say this is very legal and very cool.



Just make sure to bribe them after the deed is done though, strange technicality
 
This has been a tread with the "conservative" branch of this Court for the last twenty years or so. I think it has less to do with their so-called conservative viewpoints than it has to do with their direct personal benefits received from billionaire patrons. In essence the Supreme Court is redefining bribery to protect themselves and it has little, if anything, to do with any valid interpretation of the Constitution.

One thing is for certain-this interpretation is 180 degrees opposite from the beliefs about bribery held by the Founding Fathers and consistently applied throughout the years until now. I personally believe that the (relative) lack of corruption in American government has led to our growth and to our current world leadership. IMO this trend of the current Supreme Court leads directly to future decline of the USA economically as well as politically.
 
KMFJD said:
~The final SCOTUS decision today is Snyder v. US. Kavanaugh has the court's 6-3 decision on ideological grounds, holding that the Section 666 bribery statute does not apply to "gratuities" given for public officials' *past* acts. Jackson writes the liberals' dissent.

~The mayor of Portage, Indiana, steered over $1 million in city contracts to a truck dealership, which then wrote him a $13,000 check. The conservatives on SCOTUS—with extensive experience in being lavished with gifts after favorable rulings—say this is very legal and very cool.



Just make sure to bribe them after the deed is done though, strange technicality
Click to expand...
Sadly, bribery has been legal since at least 2015.

McDonnell v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Basically in order to be convicted of taking bribes now you have to be caught on camera accepting one of those cartoon bags with a dollar sign on the side while singing a song about how you're going to use your bribe money. Not sure you can be convicted even then, actually.
 
fskimospy said:
Sadly, bribery has been legal since at least 2015.

McDonnell v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Basically in order to be convicted of taking bribes now you have to be caught on camera accepting one of those cartoon bags with a dollar sign on the side while singing a song about how you're going to use your bribe money. Not sure you can be convicted even then, actually.
Click to expand...
No, no, you see previously bribery simply wasn't illegal. Now it is officially legal. Progress! /s
 
fskimospy said:
Sadly, bribery has been legal since at least 2015.

McDonnell v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Basically in order to be convicted of taking bribes now you have to be caught on camera accepting one of those cartoon bags with a dollar sign on the side while singing a song about how you're going to use your bribe money. Not sure you can be convicted even then, actually.
Click to expand...
Before long they're going to be reduced to the 'no reasonable person could be convinced this is an actual court' defense.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Before long they're going to be reduced to the 'no reasonable person could be convinced this is an actual court' defense.
Click to expand...
Yes, with these Supreme Court rulings, I'd expect to see almost any attempt at bringing charges for public corruption summarily dismissed with pre-trial motions. Although that won't really be even necessary, as no prosecutor or DA will even bother trying to bring such bribery charges forward any longer.
 
ivwshane said:
What a fucking stupid comment. Will Biden be checking in on the owners of the student debt he’s excused to make sure they vote for him? No? Then how is it a bribe you fucking ignorant wise and beautiful woman?
Click to expand...
For some reason people think enacting policies to make people's lives better in the hopes that you will vote for them is 'buying votes' or 'bribery' instead of 'the literal point of democracy'.
 
pcgeek11 said:
Sounds a lot like Joe Biden paying off college debts with taxpayer money...
Click to expand...
Or Donald Trump and every other Republican president giving huge tax breaks to rich people, financed by public debt.

While I didn't support student loan forgiveness without fundamental reforms to the program if we ARE going to give taxpayer money away it's refreshing for it to at least go to regular people for once instead of the ultra rich.
 
ivwshane said:
What a fucking stupid comment. Will Biden be checking in on the owners of the student debt he’s excused to make sure they vote for him? No? Then how is it a bribe you fucking ignorant wise and beautiful woman?
Click to expand...

It was a comparison between the "No Tax on Tips" being called a bribe comment and Biden paying off college debts is just as much a bribe as the tax exemption on tips is a bribe.

Will Trump be going to check on the people excused from taxes on tips verify they vote for him?

We all know that neither of these is a bribe. I would say that both are enticements for votes however.

I am all for no taxes on tips.

fskimospy said:
For some reason people think enacting policies to make people's lives better in the hopes that you will vote for them is 'buying votes' or 'bribery' instead of 'the literal point of democracy'.
Click to expand...

See above.

brycejones said:
Bless your heart
Click to expand...

Back at you.
 
pcgeek11 said:
It was a comparison between the "No Tax on Tips" being called a bribe comment and Biden paying off college debts is just as much a bribe as the tax exemption on tips is a bribe.

Will Trump be going to check on the people excused from taxes on tips verify they vote for him?

We all know that neither of these is a bribe. I would say that both are enticements for votes however.



See above.



Back at you.
Click to expand...

Biden actually put that policy in place, Trump, a known pathological liar, said an offhand comment at a campaign event.

To equate the two is dumbassery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top