I’m a bit disappointed the article doesn’t go into the second thing at all.
I never received a legal bribe
That’s because bribery is illegal. There’s no such thing as a legal bribe; which is a very interesting distinction to make. The implication being he’s received bribes.
Further, the Biden family didn’t receive bribes. They received payments for whatever. Yes those payments may have been mostly to associate the Biden name to those dealings, that’s not illegal.
That’s because bribery is illegal. There’s no such thing as a legal bribe
Bullshit. If I pay a politician to vote the way I want, that’s a bribe. That the inherently corrupt system makes it legal as long as I don’t spell out the quid pro quo specifically like the world’s worst undercover cop doesn’t make it any less of a bribe.
Further, the Biden family didn’t receive bribes.
Who said anything about the Bidens? I’m talking about The Invertebrate Formerly Known as Speaker…
And I honestly don’t know if the family got bribes and I don’t really care as long as they weren’t connected to Joe himself. That HE’S been personally bribed as a politician is not in doubt, though.
Let’s be real here: lobbying is, for all intents and purposes except in a legal sense for the US, a legal bribe. It’s a corporation (read: the CEO or somebody on the executive board) paying a politician to take whatever fuck position the corporate interest wants. The fact that politicians basically dress up bribes as literally anything except a bribe is disingenuous and disgusting because they can just go “oh, that wasn’t a bribe that was a uhhhh - checks notes - ‘donation to my SuperPAC’,” and somehow that is ok.
Shit like this is what happens when you let greedy rich fucks have power over legislation.
Bullshit. If I pay a politician to vote the way I want, that’s a bribe. That the inherently corrupt system makes it legal as long as I don’t spell out the quid pro quo specifically like the world’s worst undercover cop doesn’t make it any less of a bribe.
So. where exactly are you disagreeing with me? there is zero evidence Joe Biden ever received money or any other form of bribe, or was ever influences by his son’s position on the board. The 20 million they talk about going to the “Biden Family”… a lot of that is just business associates doing… business. Oh, and the Hunter was employed by Burismo. That is no more illegal than you being employed by your presumed employer. was it of dubious ethics? perhaps. but it’s not illegal, and there’s no sign that it induced Joe Biden to behave in an unethical manner. if there was a smoking gun, they’d have found it by now an been waiving it around every chance they get.
When McCarthy claims to have never received a legal bribe, he’s not speaking to that second definition you screenshot. You know, the highly informal one used by parents who know their just encouraging bad habits. In any case, to make the distinction of “i’ve never received an legal bribe” implies that he has in fact received a bribe- there would be no need to make that distinction. Further, because all bribes are illegal… any bribe he might have received would not fall into the classification of ‘legal bribe’. At least, not while McCarthy is employed by the federal government.
Who said anything about the Bidens? I’m talking about The Invertebrate Formerly Known as Speaker…
McCarthy’s comments about bribes were in reference to the Bidens.
The part where you said that there’s no such thing as a legal bribe. I thought my disagreement to THAT preposterous claim was at least blatantly obvious, even if any of the rest was too subtle.
McCarthy’s comments about bribes were in reference to the Bidens.
Ah. I see. The body text was just me listing examples of equally ridiculous statements, in the way The Onion sometimes do in more elegant ways.
The part where you said that there’s no such thing as a legal bribe. I thought my disagreement to THAT preposterous claim was at least blatantly obvious, even if any of the rest was too subtle.
Bribery is illegal by definition you can call it preposterous if you want. but it has a very specific legal context… and while there’s really no teeth there, McCarthy did just imply he’s received illegal bribes.
Insider trading is also illegal unless you’re a member of Congress.
The crime of bribery and the overall concept of bribery are not the same thing. The former is much more situationional and narrowly defined, the latter is more straightforward, easily understandable and honest. Especially in a system where accepted corruption is the rule, not the exception.
Insider trading is also illegal unless you’re a member of Congress.
yes it is? before the STOCK Act, there was no explicit carve out for insider trading laws. after there was a specific declaration that it applies. that it might not be enforced (okay, we know it’s not enforced.) doesn’t make it legal. Same with speeding. go to far with either and they’ll come down on you.
IMO, that should be resolved by forcing any one (and their families,) to put their cash into a blind trust. Or maybe, a double blind, so to speak. Where they can select somebody to select the managers, but not allowed to know specifically whose managing- and the people managing don’t know whose cash it is, either. Bank tellers have more financial oversight than congress does.
Members of Congress are allowed to invest in stocks right as they exit the chamber where they voted in a way that would benefit or hurt sectors or specific companies.
Some would argue “yes, but the votes are public so everyone can take advantage of them”, but by the time the general public has that opportunity, both politicians and then automated stock trading algorithms have acted to make it far less advantageous if at all.
If you STILL don’t get that insider trading is in effect legal for Congress (as bribes are), check out how they keep outperforming the market despite very few of them having professional background in stock trading.
The STOCK act is just toothless ass-covering or, put in another way, a bandage put on a broken leg for appearances’ sake.
I’m a bit disappointed the article doesn’t go into the second thing at all.
That’s because bribery is illegal. There’s no such thing as a legal bribe; which is a very interesting distinction to make. The implication being he’s received bribes.
Further, the Biden family didn’t receive bribes. They received payments for whatever. Yes those payments may have been mostly to associate the Biden name to those dealings, that’s not illegal.
Bullshit. If I pay a politician to vote the way I want, that’s a bribe. That the inherently corrupt system makes it legal as long as I don’t spell out the quid pro quo specifically like the world’s worst undercover cop doesn’t make it any less of a bribe.
Who said anything about the Bidens? I’m talking about The Invertebrate Formerly Known as Speaker…
And I honestly don’t know if the family got bribes and I don’t really care as long as they weren’t connected to Joe himself. That HE’S been personally bribed as a politician is not in doubt, though.
Let’s be real here: lobbying is, for all intents and purposes except in a legal sense for the US, a legal bribe. It’s a corporation (read: the CEO or somebody on the executive board) paying a politician to take whatever fuck position the corporate interest wants. The fact that politicians basically dress up bribes as literally anything except a bribe is disingenuous and disgusting because they can just go “oh, that wasn’t a bribe that was a uhhhh - checks notes - ‘donation to my SuperPAC’,” and somehow that is ok.
Shit like this is what happens when you let greedy rich fucks have power over legislation.
My point exactly! 🤜🤛
deleted by creator
So. where exactly are you disagreeing with me? there is zero evidence Joe Biden ever received money or any other form of bribe, or was ever influences by his son’s position on the board. The 20 million they talk about going to the “Biden Family”… a lot of that is just business associates doing… business. Oh, and the Hunter was employed by Burismo. That is no more illegal than you being employed by your presumed employer. was it of dubious ethics? perhaps. but it’s not illegal, and there’s no sign that it induced Joe Biden to behave in an unethical manner. if there was a smoking gun, they’d have found it by now an been waiving it around every chance they get.
When McCarthy claims to have never received a legal bribe, he’s not speaking to that second definition you screenshot. You know, the highly informal one used by parents who know their just encouraging bad habits. In any case, to make the distinction of “i’ve never received an legal bribe” implies that he has in fact received a bribe- there would be no need to make that distinction. Further, because all bribes are illegal… any bribe he might have received would not fall into the classification of ‘legal bribe’. At least, not while McCarthy is employed by the federal government.
McCarthy’s comments about bribes were in reference to the Bidens.
The part where you said that there’s no such thing as a legal bribe. I thought my disagreement to THAT preposterous claim was at least blatantly obvious, even if any of the rest was too subtle.
Ah. I see. The body text was just me listing examples of equally ridiculous statements, in the way The Onion sometimes do in more elegant ways.
Just for the record: as far as I can tell, there’s no there there with regards to Hunter Biden, as further implied by the fact that the GOP-controlled House won’t let him answer their questions in public, only behind closed doors.
Bribery is illegal by definition you can call it preposterous if you want. but it has a very specific legal context… and while there’s really no teeth there, McCarthy did just imply he’s received illegal bribes.
Insider trading is also illegal unless you’re a member of Congress.
The crime of bribery and the overall concept of bribery are not the same thing. The former is much more situationional and narrowly defined, the latter is more straightforward, easily understandable and honest. Especially in a system where accepted corruption is the rule, not the exception.
yes it is? before the STOCK Act, there was no explicit carve out for insider trading laws. after there was a specific declaration that it applies. that it might not be enforced (okay, we know it’s not enforced.) doesn’t make it legal. Same with speeding. go to far with either and they’ll come down on you.
IMO, that should be resolved by forcing any one (and their families,) to put their cash into a blind trust. Or maybe, a double blind, so to speak. Where they can select somebody to select the managers, but not allowed to know specifically whose managing- and the people managing don’t know whose cash it is, either. Bank tellers have more financial oversight than congress does.
Members of Congress are allowed to invest in stocks right as they exit the chamber where they voted in a way that would benefit or hurt sectors or specific companies.
Some would argue “yes, but the votes are public so everyone can take advantage of them”, but by the time the general public has that opportunity, both politicians and then automated stock trading algorithms have acted to make it far less advantageous if at all.
If you STILL don’t get that insider trading is in effect legal for Congress (as bribes are), check out how they keep outperforming the market despite very few of them having professional background in stock trading.
The STOCK act is just toothless ass-covering or, put in another way, a bandage put on a broken leg for appearances’ sake.