If he argues that they were actually personal gifts, you just charge him with accepting a bribe as a federal official on the basis of his clear confession.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
100% this group thread. And Dems should be signaling that constantly to anyone - foreign or domestic - already or planning to profit off this blatant bribery and corruption. Put them all on notice now. Or, considering that might just encourage more illegal campaign contributions to GOP
don't announce it publicly, but make it a staple of your party as soon as you regain power and aggressively seize any assets given away and any illgotten gains received. The key is not enabling those who were part of any corrupt bargain to retain their illegal assets for years as they await trial.
Bolsonaro will likely go to jail for coordinating a coup d'état, but in other indictments he's also going to jail for selling a bunch of watches and jewellery the Saudis "gifted" to the Brazilian government, which he claims were personal gifts.
Would that circumvent Trump v US? I suppose that since the statement was made out of office it shouldn’t be subject to absolute or presumptive immunity. Honestly if the next president doesn’t at least attempt this I’m gonna be pissed.
Not really. That in combination with the McDonnell ruling where bribery can only exist with explicit evidence of a corrupt official act (practically requiring an MOU!), makes demanding and accenting bribery an Article II power.
It's starting to look more and more likely they've zero intention of free and fair elections. I'm surprised more people haven't noticed this - because the illegality is everywhere and beyond measure.
This is a very good idea so long as it doesn't end up in front of Aileen Cannon
(which is to say - I think this is smart, clever, and correct; and also we need less focus on clever legal arguments and more focus on raw power moves)
Comments
And Republicans would maybe see asset forfeiture in a Whole New Fucking Light.
Accept a Qatari jet? Ours now.
Bought a National Park? No, you didn't, it's still ours.
And so on and so forth.
(which is to say - I think this is smart, clever, and correct; and also we need less focus on clever legal arguments and more focus on raw power moves)