• phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    typically payments made to an official after an official act as a token of appreciation

    Am I taking crazy pills or is this asshole just literally saying here that it’s okay to be corrupt?

  • OldChicoAle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    So is the difference “I’ll give you money to do this thing” versus “I’ll give you money if you do this thing”?

    They both sound like bribes to me. Money, goods, or services are just handed over at different times.

    I fucking hate these people. No shame. No morals. No humanity.

  • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Politicians can legally be bribed after the fact now. Phew, what a relief.

    I guess step two is to decide exactly how many hours a bribe needs to be given, before doing someone a favour, for it to just be considered a gift.

        • bss03@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Vocabulary question X + shell + powder = bullet, what is X?

          Because usually the threat is that X will be delivered through use of powder the destination of the shell is ambiguous but not included in the delivery.

          When you deliver while (unfired) bullets it’s generally not considered a threat.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            That very much depends on how the unfired bullet(s) is/are delivered. Did we leave a bullet on the lieutenant’s pillow or did we give the politician a box of the latest match grade hunting rounds with a bow on it?

  • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    So that means that I can engage in a a little tax evasion, as a treat, right?

    On a serious note, from the article:

    the law makes it a very serious crime, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, for a federal official to accept a bribe

    Can we start actually enforcing this please?

    • Crikeste@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Define bribe and you’ll start to see where enforcing this becomes a problem. Especially with legalized corruption in the form of lobbying and ‘gifts’.

      • feannag@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

  • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    The way I read all of this and th decision is that they are saying that this law specifically only applies to bribery. They define it as a quid quo pro in advance of an act.

    In this particular case, you can’t charge the guy with bribery because it doesn’t meet the definition.

    That doesn’t mean a “tip after the fact” isn’t corrupt. That doesn’t mean that’s not in violation of some other law. It’s saying that you can’t apply this law to this case. This court is threading a fucking needle in an attempt to make this a state issue and say the Fed law can’t apply.

    Justice Jackson’s dissent is amazing though:

    Snyder’s absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s Court could love."

    The Court’s reasoning elevates nonexistent federalism concerns over the plain text of this statute and is a quintessential example of the tail wagging the dog," Jackson added.

    Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions. Greed makes governments—at every level—less responsive, less efficient, and less trustworthy from the perspective of the communities they serve,"

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      “At every level” she’s making specific reference to a specific certain level in the US judicial system here… Some pretty good, brave activism three - good luck getting your mom a house from a billionaire now Justice Jackson

      • I_Clean_Here@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Your comment is nonsensical. Format that shit. And wtf, are you saying Judge Jackson is corrupt as well? You are making no sense.

  • derf82@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    People are way overreacting to this. This decision was 100% about a federal statute. Unaffected are the MANY, MANY state and local laws preventing state and local government employees from taking gifts.

    Edit: for y’all downvoters, even the linked article states

    In any event, the decision in *Snyder *is narrow. It does not rule that Congress could not ban gratuities. It simply rules that this particular statute only reaches bribes.