273
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
273 points (98.2% liked)
Not The Onion
12319 readers
377 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.