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 bribes gifts/vacations they are getting from “friends”.
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.
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.
they claim to have played a part in over 185 pieces of legislation (mostly at the state level) that contributed to their core platform represent.us/our-wins/
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.
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.
Gustafson said in a statement following her defeat. "What we have to say about giving birth and everything related to it is secondary to whatever the men of the Republican Party want."
Any woman in support of the GOP is asking for this outcome in the end. Subjugation at the heel of their man. Someone elsewhere had mentioned Uncle Tom's, folks who kowtow to those who would enslave them in desperate acts for a glimmer of affection. Fundamentalist see people as pawns, not friends, not allies, not equals, but as tools to further their agenda. That's why towards the end, Uncle Tom was flogged to death by the very people whom he sought to curry a modicum of favor.
Similar story is Phil Valentine, mocked the COVID virus, derided any notion of a vaccine. Did exactly as his Republican peers did and said. Wanted nothing more than to kiss up to Trump and had bigger aspirations in the political sphere than his talk radio show provided. Got sick from COVID, spent the remainder of his life suffering to catch a breath alone in a hospital. There was a big moment of silence and remembrance on the radio the next day, by the end of the week it was "Phil who?" The people who he sought to have elevate his status in life forgot about him the second his situation turned unfavorable to their agenda.
Today, outside of his family, the majority of people who remember him are the exact people he mocked and taunted on his radio show. And it's not a remembrance of who he was that those people remember him, it's a cautionary tale. One doesn't get "into the group" with fundamentalist. You simply exist in the group until your utility runs out and then you are removed from the group as demonstration of the group's resolve.
A “donation” up front says I’ll see what I can do, money after the fact says I’ll fight for you. Sounds like bribery to me. Not that the current system isn’t but backend feels so much worse
Jon Stewart last week pointed out the irony of Fox News being unable to handle this data, despite pushing the “facts don’t care about your feelings” mantra for years.
I’ve posted this elsewhere but I hate this so: A “donation” up front says I’ll see what I can do, money after the fact says I’ll fight for you. Sounds like bribery to me. Not that the current system isn’t but backend feels so much worse
“Data Considerations The data found on the Crime Data Explorer represents reported crime, and is not an exhaustive report of all crime that occurs. It’s important to consider the various factors that lead to crime activity and crime reporting in a community before interpreting the data. Without these considerations the available data can be deceiving. Factors to consider include population size and density, economic conditions, employment rates, prosecutorial, judicial, and correctional policies, administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement, citizens’ attitudes toward crime and policing, and the effective strength of the police force.”
I’m a lot less likely to report a crime after the George Floyd murder. Granted violent crime, like murder, tends to get reported regardless of a person’s personal feelings about police, and reported murders are down
Those caveats are pretty standard and uncontroversial when it comes to crime statistics. Source: I studied Sociology 101 at university.
Unless something has happened that would make people less likely to report crimes or less likely for there to be convictions, etc then I see no reason why these crime stats would be any more unreliable than usual.
Literally, the publisher of the data explicitly states and explains why in the quote.
The drop in reported crime coincides exactly with the George Floyd protests. Saying that because reported crime went down, all crime went down without addressing the cultural shift of the relationship between the public and the police is dishonest.
I never made any kind of argument. I just pointed out that the FBI cautions the public from drawing broad conclusions to people who are drawing broad conclusions.
Zúñiga referenced that paralysis during the rebellion, telling reporters the military was tired of the infighting and was seeking “to restore democracy.”
The infighting between the two parties is what democracy is. One party getting everything it wants and the other nothing is called a dictatorship.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.