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.
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.