[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Just as you don't understand the difference between bias and deliberate lies, you also don't understand the difference between lobbying and bribery. Whether you like it or not, lobbying (i.e., petitioning the government for redress of grievances) is constitutionally protected. Bribery is not. You sure do have some strong opinions about shit you simply don't understand. You're in a hole but can't stop yourself from digging.

And finally, either reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit, or you're purposefully twisting my words to "win" an argument. Which is it?

First, I admit to a level of bias, so I understand exactly what that is. Deliberate lies are what you must resort to when you're trying to win an argument.

Lobbying is phone calls, emails, visits to a politician's office, and maybe a well-timed contribution to a politician's favorite PAC (usually their own) in an attempt to get the politician to vote a certain way, or propose or advocate for certain legislation. It's ugly, particularly when money starts changing hands, but in our current system, it is legal provided such contributions are disclosed and reported.

Bribery is when a constituent, say a lawyer looking to get a politician to vote a certain way, pays that politician - either directly or through a trusted third party - money that goes to the politician with the expectation of a quid pro quo. It is not reported as a campaign donation. It's likely not reported as income and if it is, the source of that income is likely not accurately identified on a tax return. This is likely not a legal transaction, and thus starts to look much more like a bribe than a lobbying activity.

See the difference? It's not that hard. If you need concrete examples, see the prosecution's case against Senator Menendez for additional information about how such an arrangement might work.

Now, does this look like something that was described in the article I posted when an attorney gave money to Joe Biden's brother, with the expectation that some or all of it would end up in Joe's pocket? Was there an expectation of a quid pro quo? If you answered yes to bother questions, then you win!

Originally Posted by finnbow

BTW, there is significantly more evidence of the Trump clan and Clarence Thomas actually taking real bribes than there is for Joe Biden (actually, there's zero evidence of Biden accepting bribes). Why zero interest from you in real examples of bribery and corruption?

Thank you for your opinion on this, Attorney Finnster. Your arguments, thin as they may be, are noted for the record.

Since you claim that Clarence Thomas was accepting bribes, can you point me to a reliable source that details his acceptance of the bribe, who offered it, specifically what it was, and specifically what the quid pro quo was?