Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) found guilty of 11 of 13 ethics charges.

[HomerJS]

so is anything actually going to happen to him - as in jailtime? or will he simply get a slap on the wrist.

i will be pissed if he doesn't go to jail - because as a former federal employee, stuff like this lands you YEARS in jail. and it's bullshit that congress can get away with the same things that are super illegal for federal employees.

Not just members of congress. Even if you prosecute one they still get away with it. Former Gov of Virginia Bob McDonnell was taking lavish gifts from rich associates for him and his family. SCOTUS redefined the terms of the charges and he got off.

I wonder how Blogo wound up in jail?

 

[shortylickens]

Yup, happened yesterday.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us...ption-conviction/ar-AAhFQXx?ocid=ansmsnnews11

Son of a bitch didnt even have to go to jail after his conviction. He walked around free for two whole years while the appeal went thru.

 

[sm625]

"What difference does it make?"

 

[werepossum]

Yup, happened yesterday.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us...ption-conviction/ar-AAhFQXx?ocid=ansmsnnews11

Son of a bitch didnt even have to go to jail after his conviction. He walked around free for two whole years while the appeal went thru.

Holy crap, 8-0! Must have been a pretty blatant prosecutorial overreach.

Given that he admitted accepting almost $200k from someone with business with the state, this does not bode well.

 

[Thump553]

Holy crap, 8-0! Must have been a pretty blatant prosecutorial overreach.

Given that he admitted accepting almost $200k from someone with business with the state, this does not bode well.

From what I understand it wasn't overreach but that the Supreme Court moved the goal posts by greatly tightening up what constitutes corrupt behavior. Basically they said taking gifts alone was insufficient, the government has to prove the politician/defendant did some official act he wouldn't ordinarily do in order for it to constitute a crime.

From a law standpoint I understand what the Supreme Court did, from a citizen's standpoint I'm unhappy.

 

[Svnla]

So much for government of the people, for the people, by the people. D or R, they are difference sides on the same coin.

 

[werepossum]

From what I understand it wasn't overreach but that the Supreme Court moved the goal posts by greatly tightening up what constitutes corrupt behavior. Basically they said taking gifts alone was insufficient, the government has to prove the politician/defendant did some official act he wouldn't ordinarily do in order for it to constitute a crime.

From a law standpoint I understand what the Supreme Court did, from a citizen's standpoint I'm unhappy.

That's difficult to believe on an 8-0 decision. I agree though that taking gifts should be inherently illegal, since proving quid pro quo is virtually impossible. Especially without an email trail.

 

[shortylickens]

its annoying because if an ambassador or military leader were to accept any gifts they'd be in deep shit. You're not even allowed the appearance of impropriety because it leads to a cascade of problems.
I do not understand why state governors would get a free pass on the same type of behavior. And I'm not keen on the Supreme Court deciding this with Virginia's governor in particular.

 

[glenn1]

That's difficult to believe on an 8-0 decision. I agree though that taking gifts should be inherently illegal, since proving quid pro quo is virtually impossible. Especially without an email trail.

It's still illegal, the SCOTUS decision only spoke about what burden of proof you need to convict for it. What thump said pretty well encapsulates it:

From a law standpoint I understand what the Supreme Court did, from a citizen's standpoint I'm unhappy.

So next alternative would be to pass a new law saying that the mere acceptance of any gift over $__ is illegal without any need to prove quid pro quo. Good luck getting Congress to pass such a law however.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Yeah. We peasants would get fired if we did that in the private sector. Have any of you had to take foreign trade practices compliance training??? The way some of those laws are written, the feds can seriously ah heck you with barbed wire for stepping a toe out of line.

From what I understand it wasn't overreach but that the Supreme Court moved the goal posts by greatly tightening up what constitutes corrupt behavior. Basically they said taking gifts alone was insufficient, the government has to prove the politician/defendant did some official act he wouldn't ordinarily do in order for it to constitute a crime.

From a law standpoint I understand what the Supreme Court did, from a citizen's standpoint I'm unhappy.

 

[werepossum]

It's still illegal, the SCOTUS decision only spoke about what burden of proof you need to convict for it. What thump said pretty well encapsulates it:

So next alternative would be to pass a new law saying that the mere acceptance of any gift over $__ is illegal without any need to prove quid pro quo. Good luck getting Congress to pass such a law however.

Um, that's what I said:

I agree though that taking gifts should be inherently illegal, since proving quid pro quo is virtually impossible.

Yeah. We peasants would get fired if we did that in the private sector. Have any of you had to take foreign trade practices compliance training??? The way some of those laws are written, the feds can seriously ah heck you with barbed wire for stepping a toe out of line.

Yep. We're moving into a two-tiered legal system.

 

[Darwin333]

I detected a hint of racism about this.
Like "oh see? you can't trust a black congressman".
Face it, that is where all this is leading up to.

Are you serious????

 

[Darwin333]

Yep. We're moving into a two-tiered legal system.

Moving towards?? Is 2008 such a memory already?

 

[werepossum]

Moving towards?? Is 2008 such a memory already?

Evidently. What happened in 2008?