In ruling for the former mayor, the justices drew a distinction between bribery, which requires proof of an illegal deal, and a gratuity that can be a gift or a reward for a past favor. They said the officials may be charged and prosecuted for bribery, but not for taking money for past favors if there was no proof of an illicit deal.
huh?
[Ketanji Brown Jackson] said the mayor’s “absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s court could love.”
lol, GOTTEM
Prosecutors said James Snyder was heavily in debt and behind in paying his taxes when he became mayor of Portage, Ind., in 2012. The city needed new garbage trucks, and the mayor took over the required public bidding. He spoke regularly with two brothers who owned a local truck dealership that also had financial problems, and he designed the bidding process so that only their two new trucks would meet all of its standards. He also arranged to have the city buy an older truck that was on their lot.
Two weeks after the contracts were final, the mayor went to see the two brothers and told them of his financial troubles. They agreed to write him a check for $13,000 for undefined consulting services.
So let me get this straight, it’s not bribery because they had written contracts and it was afterwards? So if I let an official make investments into my company on behalf of me and I gave him money for it, it’s only a problem if I gave him money before or I had no contract to show for it.
That is such a bonkers distinction I really wanna see how the fuck they define if the contract for the legal bribery is sufficient or not. Does it need a stamp? What the fuck
Arguably it’s networking though it bears a fun similarity to the right losing its shit over bidens son getting a job he probably didn’t deserve like every other rich kid on the planet.
huh?
lol, GOTTEM
Seriously, how is that not outright corruption?
And it’s even played out perfectly, all cliches and circumstances check out.
So let me get this straight, it’s not bribery because they had written contracts and it was afterwards? So if I let an official make investments into my company on behalf of me and I gave him money for it, it’s only a problem if I gave him money before or I had no contract to show for it.
That is such a bonkers distinction I really wanna see how the fuck they define if the contract for the legal bribery is sufficient or not. Does it need a stamp? What the fuck
Arguably it’s networking though it bears a fun similarity to the right losing its shit over bidens son getting a job he probably didn’t deserve like every other rich kid on the planet.