Corruption does not, in fact, require an explicit quid pro quo. As a matter of law, certain gifts are illegal whether anything is delivered in return for them or not. Beyond the law, gifts can create an untoward relationship with a recipient that pays off later in diffuse ways.
Reposted from
Eric Lipton NYT
Corruption requires explict quid pro quo. It is not corrupt to take an action that aligns with the interest of a person who gives you a gift, unless the official action was in direct response to that gift--a bribe. Terms matter. Accuracy and fairness matters. Regardless of what social media wants.
Comments
https://bsky.app/profile/ericlipton.nytimes.com/post/3lfkuyqv5xk2b
re still influenced to prescribe drugs if given monogrammed ballpoint pens and sticky notes.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/21-11157/21-11157-2022-08-23.html
I think the Hobbs Act (regarding extortion) is more open-ended, based on my reading, but again, I'm not a trained legal scholar/lawyer.
From what I understand it'd be applied as precedent (or possible precedent) to anything falling under that section... buuut looking now, it seems that I think you might be right, since FCPA is here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78dd-1
But then again, if they ruled the similar 666 section requires quid pro quo, then perhaps that could influence any ruling pertaining to this as well.
Mentioning "to replace Air Force One" is such a proof. AF1 belongs to the function, not the person.
Anything else is just Sparkling Corruption
Also, giving ACCESS is an overt act IMHO, and provides a thing of value in exchange for the memecoin, big plane, inaugural donation, etc.
You can commit a corrupt act and still not the guilty of violating the bribery statues, though it will certainly can constitute as an unconstitutional emolument (even if not technically bribery).
This is a Bribe!🛑
FeellikeImtakingcrazypills.gif
It's much simpler: Hunter and Joe Biden are two different people.
Joe clearly does not have full control of his druggie son's actions, and not is there no proof of the quo, there's no proof any quid reached Biden Sr, a man with a scant $10m in net worth.
the damage to the liberal sense of what 'corruption' is is gonna take a fucking minute to repair
But then Joe Biden did the exact opposite of what Burisma wanted, so that's not bad.
That person will be a true patriot and hero.
Lipton's reporting on Hunter Biden, like his broader work, often focuses on the intersection of family, business, and politics, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest and the ethical implications of these relationships.
I can't accept gifts over 100 dollars at value at work. The circumstance doesn't matter. You can't accept gifts!
I once had an official grant giver who refused cookies at her visit!
If the NYT chooses to adopt a lax definition so much the worse for the NYT
Inducement improperly influencing… is the core, per John T Noonan, Jr
If a judge presides over her spouse's lawsuit, it is corrupt even if another judge would have made the exact same decisions during litigation. Creating the appearance that she might be corrupt is in and of itself corruption.
Continues to blow my mind that those with the most power aren’t simply held to the same standards as the rest of the federal work force.
we stand together to stop their agenda
100+ protests nationwide - Join the movement
🎯 https://antimagaclub.com/find
� Be there or be square
@melabeilles.bsky.social @cdnwest.bsky.social @juicy-raccon.bsky.social
They love the opinions they agree with.
(To be fair, there are real problems with intra-left discourse, especially with the death threats sent to Will Stancil).
This obliviousness is maddening.
It's not just "here's a gift, here's my official act." It's "here's a gift." "Hmm, this guy gave me a gift some time ago."
We could really use the help. (avid listener)
It's because they approve of the assault on our democracy. They want the power the fascist regime is amassing, for themselves.
They're self-hating liberals (if they're liberal at all) and have to perform endless public exorcisms to prove that they're not biased, thus making a right wing bias so profound that, well, here we are.
What bites is that they get actual critiques from the left that stick in their minds
It's time we face that the media chooses political targets not based on how harmful their policies are materially, but how annoying-yet-not-scary they are.
It's time we face that the media chooses political targets not based on how harmful their policies are materially, but how annoying-yet-not-scary they are.
Social Media mob strains bounds of propriety
(on second thought nyt might use more direct and vivid language than they’re willing to use re the obvious uncleanness, stain, and pollution of Trump’s corruption)
So a history/philosophy major feels qualified to lecture on law.