51–60 of 179 posts
and it looks like those donations will get him nowhere.
Didn't he already have some very prominent 1st amendment lawyer writing legal briefs about how not letting him intimidate witnesses was a big 1st amendment issue? Sure, his money spends, maybe the guy would have done it for anyone who paid enough, but I suspect all these prior donations helped grease the wheel for that kind of thing, a lot.
Funny how because these are "donation" and "lobbying" but not "bribe" there is no consequence for the receiving party and also no recuperation of the money.
Then one day the bribe money is under scruteny, this hits the news and within less than a day he's in actual jail for the first time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering this is a common belief, it’s hard to agree they’ve convinced anyone.
Have you been to a country that has actual corruption?
I was expecting wheelbarrows of cash not having to set up a foundation!
Funny how because these are "donation" and "lobbying" but not "bribe" there is no consequence for the receiving party and also no recuperation of the money.
I love the timing of this: Sam is out on bail for the entire thing, basically living his life with 0 consequence for many many months. Then one day the bribe money is under scruteny, this hits the news and within less than a day he's in actual jail for the first time.
Funny how because these are "donation" and "lobbying" but not "bribe" there is no consequence for the receiving party and also no recuperation of the money.
I love the timing of this: Sam is out on bail for the entire thing, basically living his life with 0 consequence for many many months. Then one day the bribe money is under scruteny, this hits the news and within less than a day he's in actual jail for the first time.
Are you suggesting that They made him leak a witness’s diary so they could arrest him for witness tampering?
Sad to see this conspiracy stuff leaking into HN. Unfortunately I need to make fun of this wildly misinformed cruft to help prevent it taking root here.
Funny how because these are "donation" and "lobbying" but not "bribe" there is no consequence for the receiving party and also no recuperation of the money.
In Citizens United our wise Supreme Court enshrined bribery as a fundamental right. No law can be passed to stop it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's quite common for politicians to return money that is stolen/foreign/otherwise when they find out. Sometimes because the law requires it, but also if they don't, the attack ad for their opponent writes itself. Although obviously it depends on how much time has passed and whether the money should already be considered "spent". Because even if the politician wants to repay it, new donors want their money going to r…
> Because even if the politician wants to repay it, new donors want their money going to re-election activities, not going to repay FTX. After a period of time, you might as well be asking the television stations to return the money they received for running the campaign ads, which... isn't gonna happen. Politicians should be made to pay out of their own pockets or have an insurance for this type of situation.
Why stop at politicians, though? Shouldn't everyone who accepts large sums of money be held accountable if it turns out the money was stolen? At least to some degree?
In a just and fair world, the lawmakers elected by corrupt crypto-barons' misappropriation would be chastened. Unfortunately, we don't seem to live in that world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because even if the politician wants to repay it, new donors want their money going to re-election activities, not going to repay FTX. After a period of time, you might as well be asking the television stations to return the money they received for running the campaign ads, which... isn't gonna happen. Politicians should be made to pay out of their own pockets or have an insurance for this type of situation.
> Politicians should be made to pay out of their own pockets or have an insurance for this type of situation. Why stop at politicians, though? Shouldn't everyone who accepts large sums of money be held accountable if it turns out the money was stolen? At least to some degree?
The sums sure are substantial. You can argue they know their employer was no angel, too. OK to claw back paychecks, or do we draw the line somewhere closer to actually participating in a criminal act?