r/nottheonion • u/Loud-Ad-2280 • 3d ago
The Supreme Court Just Legalized Bribery
https://www.levernews.com/the-supreme-court-just-legalized-bribery/858
u/Kimorin 3d ago
wow, supreme court decision is just around the fact that the money came after the contract.... what a silly distinction to make... even if completely unsolicited, it's not like the gift won't have lasting effect on future decisions... what a stupid decision
155
u/whatproblems 3d ago
yeah now you just have to wait to pay off
51
u/ennui_no_nokemono 3d ago
Instead of quid pro quo, it's quo pro quid. Completely legit.
1
u/Bepmg_Ijumfs 2d ago
Yup.. you see, the words changed.
The actions didn't, the corruption didn't, but the current SCOTUS is real big on semantics when they need to make such an egregious and obviously corrupt decision.
197
u/Jaepheth 3d ago
Not a bribe, a tip!
Americans LOVE tipping culture.
28
u/sean0883 3d ago
The tip in question was $13,000. So feel free to go nuts.
2
u/VirtuosoLoki 2d ago
that is just 1%. this dude severely under tipped
1
u/Bepmg_Ijumfs 2d ago
There is a case winding it's way up to SCOTUS now that will likely codify a % of the graft, as the gratuity going forward. Can't have these law-breakers not getting paid a good rate, now can we?
He should AT LEAST, gotta a motorcoach out of it. Not an RV, specifically, a motorcoach.
17
u/wolverinehunter002 3d ago
Guess we are officially China with guns now lmao.
51
u/IAmNotMoki 3d ago
Buddy they execute CEOs and Senior officials who do significant bribery or take bribes. Not saying the state should necessarily execute our own corrupt officials, but I don't think I'd be particularly sympathetic.
29
u/TheReapingFields 3d ago
With respect, China executes CEOs and Senior officials who engage in bribery or take bribes WHEN IT SUITS THOSE CLOSEST TO POWER.
But most of the time, for those in positions to engage in such activities, being found out by someone who actually gives half a shit is so rare, that it is EASILY worth the risk, especially if they ensure everything they are responsible for works smoothly and as intended, regardless of what grift they are in the midst of.
13
10
u/cheekycheeksy 3d ago
Nah, i for one am worth China on this one. Corruption affects minions of people
1
10
u/astuteobservor 3d ago
We are worst. In China, politicians get the axe or bullet if the bribe is big enough.
→ More replies (1)14
u/canal_boys 3d ago
China is actually the opposite of this. I have read a lot about China recently after finding out they dominate in green energy and oh boy it makes our future look bleak. China prosecuted corrupt leaders and actually put their wealthy people in check while we are slowly letting them take over our entire country from top to bottom. Scary times for our country. Hopefully there are good billionaires out there because at this point, they run this country.
15
u/Satellite_bk 3d ago
Good billionaire is an oxymoron.
→ More replies (1)4
u/TheLatestTrance 3d ago
I have really tried, but I can't find any truly really just plain good and ethical billionaires, through and through. Do you or anyone else know of any? I'm genuinely curious if it is possible, or if you have to be at least a little evil to even want to be and get to be a billionaire.
→ More replies (2)7
u/teflonPrawn 3d ago
It's literally impossible. The simple concentration of wealth into fulfilling the needs of one person is immoral.
2
→ More replies (5)1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
→ More replies (2)1
47
u/Nick85er 3d ago
It makes a whole lot more sense when we consider how many of these actual justices are compromised because they've been accepting gifts millions in compensation from people with pending cases before the court or interests before the court.
7
u/IDoSANDance 3d ago
Duh. It's only stupid because YOU aren't a corrupt politician. or SCOTUS.
Sorry, repeated myself there.
2
1
1
u/SardauMarklar 3d ago
"It's quid pro quo that isn't allowed. Quo pro quid is completely acceptable" ~Dumbfuck Alito
1
u/Caveboy0 2d ago
Just do things that help businesses then get paid it’s easy to legally bribe people. The fee in question is 13k and the justices are so worried about $25 gift cards being considered bribery. These are the most qualified people to rule for life?
1
u/Bepmg_Ijumfs 2d ago
what a stupid decision
This is a nice summary of everything coming out of the current corrupt/bought SCOTUS.
-8
u/dravik 3d ago
The Supreme Court isn't supposed to decide the best policy outcome. They are supposed to interpret what the law says. If the outcome is stupid then Congress needs to fix the law.
This ruling says that Congress wrote the law so that it only covers transactions with a provable tit for tat arrangement.
The gratuities this case is about aren't covered by the law as currently written. They aren't ruling that it shouldn't be illegal, just that the current law doesn't cover it.
13
u/randomaccount178 3d ago
I will disagree with one minor thing. The supreme court isn't ruling the gratuities this case is about aren't covered but rather that the law as written doesn't cover gratuities. That doesn't mean the person is not guilty, it presumably means that the judge gave the jury the wrong instructions on the crime. It is possible all the appeal will do is get the person a new trail in which case they will have to argue the correct standard to the jury. It just depends on the strength of the evidence and the relief they are entitled to in the appeal.
14
u/colopervs 3d ago
This is mostly a cop out. No law can be written to cover every possible situation when judges have extreme bias. E.g. "the law didn't say that my grandchild can't accept the bribe on my behalf...".
But, your point is well taken that if we had a properly functioning legislative branch the laws could be immediately amended to stop fuckery from judges with bias after the ruling.
3
u/disgruntled_oranges 3d ago
The law was written originally in a way that would prevent this, and then amended 3 years later.
33
u/joeri1505 3d ago
Yeah...
Not in a country where supreme judges are assigned by presidents specifically for their political alignment.
9
u/APiousCultist 3d ago
Is it gratuities when it is in the thousands? They talked about how it isn't illegal to get a free lunch or a gift hamper and this law starts >$5000. Guy gave them a government contract and they give him $13,000 for vaguely defined reasons. Gratuities in general shouldn't be legal anyway, but 13K is a fucking stretch.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (4)9
u/disdainfulsideeye 3d ago
"As The Lever reported in March, powerful business groups and conservative think tanks helped engineer the new ruling. The effort was part of a decades-long push by corporate interests to limit the scope of laws prohibiting corruption and bribery."
→ More replies (1)
478
u/rsnbaseball 3d ago
I hate this timeline.
94
10
u/Normal_Package_641 3d ago
Nothing will happen for the better until people take to the streets. Online activism is easily ignored.
11
5
1
1
u/AReallyAsianName 2d ago
God damn it McFly why'd you have go and get that Sports Almanac and then lose it?!
1
374
u/Car_is_mi 3d ago
...gutted a key federal bribery statute, handing down a ruling on Wednesday in an obscure corruption case that allows powerful interests to give gifts to politicians as rewards for favors.
So basically They are CYA for themselves with both Thomas and Alito already in hot water they are paving the way to ensuring that they (the supreme court) are legally allowed to exchange verdicts for compensation. We're so fucked as a society.
65
u/FILTHBOT4000 3d ago
Only covering their asses in the short term. As far as I'm concerned, this wholly opens the door to packing the courts or changing the lifetime appointment rule, or instituting some other method of accountability. They clearly cannot be trusted with the power granted; every other part of the government, including the President, has far more oversight.
50
2
u/thedude0425 2d ago
Wasn’t this just for state and local level politicians, not federal employees?
1
u/ThatFargoGuy 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yes, but this is reddit and we need to knee jerk reaction everything without actually reading the readily available source of the ruling at supremecourt.gov.
I still don't agree with the ruling as now there isn't any repercussions for receiving a “gift” when there is no clear delineation between bribe and gift for state officials.
1
→ More replies (1)1
u/Bepmg_Ijumfs 2d ago
So basically They are CYA for themselves with both Thomas and Alito already in hot water they are paving the way to ensuring that they (the supreme court) are legally allowed to exchange verdicts for compensation. We're so fucked as a society.
Not just themselves, everyone who is up for a little more corruption and graft in their life just got a very big bump.
137
267
59
u/ramdomvariableX 3d ago
Imagine teachers getting expensive gifts after the semester for giving As, or boss get to sleep with the employees after they get promotions, all these will be acceptable by this line of argument.
3
u/Bepmg_Ijumfs 2d ago
Doctors cannot accept a gift for more than $49.95 or drama occurs.
Now, they can just give a little wink, prescribe the meds the rep wants to sell, then get a check a few months later..."as a thanks".
1
55
u/PostitMonkey 3d ago
I know I don't have enough money but where do I send 10$ to get what I want?
19
u/GovernmentEvening815 3d ago
Check behind the 7/11
2
31
58
u/jafromnj 3d ago
They have ZERO honor
23
u/Vividagger 3d ago
People like them are the reason I don’t believe in the honor system. Whoever came up with the idea of an honor system is an imbecile.
→ More replies (1)
68
u/Dramatic-Ant-9364 3d ago
Clarence Thomas needs a new motor home and Sammy Alito wants one too. Cmon...pony up....
8
3
u/Neo-_-_- 2d ago
Dude was so pissed with John Oliver taunting him that he had to make it legal to accept one that someone else would buy him.
Out of spite ya know
2
u/Throwawayac1234567 3d ago
He needs his bribes or hes going to throw his tantrums and leave scotus.
wonder if his daugther is realizing she is benefitting from her college education being paid by harlan crow or another megadonor, probably going to grow up just like miss whiney clarence.
51
u/B0xGhost 3d ago
The dems need a super majority to expand the court or places term limits on the justices. The SC won’t even agree to an ethics code so something has to change.
13
u/paperbackgarbage 3d ago
The dems need a super majority to expand the court or places term limits on the justices.
Ideally, the super majority would do the trick...but all they really would need is a simple majority, and then suspend the filibuster for adding SCOTUS justices.
Of course, they don't want to do this (because it would inevitably be weaponized as Congressional majorities ebb and flow)...but I'm not sure what else can be done. This SCOTUS majority appears to be deeply unfit (if not completely corrupt).
7
u/Dawnrazor 3d ago
A straight expansion of the court would only last until there was another Republican administration, then they would expand it again to give themselves a majority. What would work better is making it work like the Federal Court Districts, have a pool of say 30 judges nine picked at random to hear a case. That makes it a lot harder for either side to pack the bench in their favour.
Of course, that's assuming the current bench doesn't rule any changes unconstitutional.
44
u/guydoestuff 3d ago
the same supreme court thats been taking bribes for years? very shocking they would do this.
10
u/hailwyatt 3d ago
Right. The timing is so good for them given the current scrutiny, that it might as well have been orchestrated.
Now, we can be as mad as we want about Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo and all these other oligarchs and christofascists, but there's nothing legally wrong with any of it.
Seems pretty messed up that none of them had to recuse themselves given the accusations aimed at them are very similar, and they functionally just got to be their own juries.
26
u/SternLecture 3d ago
this is what they are spending time doing? I keep finding myself optimistic thinking there is some practical reason that will benefit the American people, i just dont know it yet.
17
u/jchall3 3d ago
Has anyone read the opinion???
They said that States decide how much it too much for a gift to a public official after the fact. Some states had a limit of $20 other states had a limit of $400. Some states had no specification at all which meant buying the mayor a cup of coffee would technically expose him to up to 10 years in prison.
The Supreme Court basically said that since it isn’t specified at the federal level each State can individually set their threshold.
12
57
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt 3d ago edited 3d ago
No, they didn't. This is just the kneejerk panic reaction to not understanding the law, or the opinion. You just want to be mad, and this is rage bait. Allow me to actually tell you what happened, because I did read the opinion.
What it said was the law, as-written, does not apply to state and local officials. It still applies to federal ones. And any state and local laws applying a similar law to state and local officials still stands. Congress can also still change the law to apply to state and local, but that would trigger a 10A challenge.
It applied the "Rule of Leniency" which is a very good thing. Also that rule is Gorsuch's baby, he applies it in pretty much every case he can, and I haven't found one where he did not. The rule of leniency says, basically:
- Whenever a criminal law is ambiguous, it must be interpreted in a manner most favorable to the defendant.
And that is what you want. Trust me, that is absolutely what you want. It's a natural outgrowth of the presumption of innocence. You must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, so if there is doubt as to how the law should be applied, then that doubt favors the defendant.
This case was similar to the bumpstcok case, and in both cases SCOTUS essentially said:
The law says Y, not X. Maybe congress meant for it to say X, but that is not what it says. If congress wants it to say X, they can change it to say X. But currently, it says Y.
And that is how the law should be. Law works as-written, especially criminal law. This is what you want, because let me give you a very possible example of it worked "as interpreted" instead:
Well, I interpret that life starts at conception, so abortion is murder, guilty.
See how quickly that can go very wrong? Criminal law works as-written, and this was the correct decision. It may not be the moral decision, or the desired decision, but that is for CONGRESS to act on. Congress and only Congress can make laws.
Here is the opinion, in pdf form
This was an extremely narrow ruling, it did not say "Bribery is legal" it said "The law, as currently written, does not apply to State and Local officials."
You want to be mad at someone, be mad at congress for writing shitty laws. Only Congress has the power to make laws. The Executive branch must enforce them as written, and the judiciary must apply them as written.
38
u/The_Bitter_Bear 3d ago
You want to be mad at someone, be mad at congress for writing shitty laws. Only Congress has the power to make laws. The Executive branch must enforce them as written, and the judiciary must apply them as written.
Fucking exactly. The Supreme Court wouldn't be as much of an issue if Congress wasn't a shit show and if the solution to get around deadlock wasn't to try and use the Supreme Court as a way to legislate.
15
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt 3d ago edited 3d ago
And if we're reading signals right, that's going to become a LOT more important once Chevron Deference is struck down in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. (Sorry I always reverse that case and incorrectly call it Raimondo v. Loper)
I am reminded of senator Sasse during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings.
There's no verse of school house rock that says give a whole bunch of power to the alphabet soup agencies, and let them decide what the governments decision should be for the people. Because the people don't have any way to fire the bureaucrats. Because people can't navigate their way through the bureaucracy, they turn to the supreme court looking for politics. The supreme court becomes our substitute political battleground.
And tell me, with a serious face, that he's wrong. Congress has for too long just abdicated their powers of lawmaking to the executive to determine. No. That's not separation of powers. And we saw it again today in SEC v. Jarksey:
"a defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator. Rather than recognize that right, the dissent would permit Congress to concentrate the roles of prosecutor, judge and jury in the hands of the Executive Branch. That is the very opposite of the separation of powers that the Constitution demands."
And yes, Sasse was a Republican Senator, but before reddit tried to "Guilty by association", let me remind them that Sasse was one of seven Republican senators to vote to convict Donald Trump of incitement of insurrection in his second impeachment trial.
5
u/greenlanternfifo 3d ago
That quote is excellent. Thank you for sharing it. And thank you even more for sharing your insight.
3
u/The_Bitter_Bear 3d ago
Completely agree. There is a very valid point in claiming too much authority has been given to agencies. Republicans probably want to strip too much power from them but at the same time agencies shouldn't be able to just create/change laws unchecked.
If (when) they are successful in limiting and the power of various agencies it's going to be awful because I doubt we'll see many laws get through unless there's some serious upsets in the upcoming elections.
I really wish more people stayed involved and voted.
1
u/duketoma 3d ago
It's a bit of a self fueling problem though. The reason Congress doesn't compromise and pass laws is because they'll just get it done through the Executive or the Supreme Court. If we take away their work around of getting things done and force them to only get things done by discussion and compromise and voting we might actually be able to get things back on track.
3
u/Izeinwinter 3d ago
Shelby County V Holder. Entirely proper law passed with a massive bipartisan vote with the most crystal clear constitutional authority possible, and the court still over ruled it for "reasons".
You are assuming that the court has something even resembling good faith. It does not.
2
u/Rusdino 3d ago
No matter what this will be a catalyst for change, unfortunately there's no foreseeable positive outcomes that don't require ridiculous pie in the sky optimism. Moving these policy decisions from experts to politicians and judges appointed through political process deepens the challenge of regulatory enforcement to impossible levels. It means thousands more hours of court cases where judges become de facto policymakers with no expertise in the matters they're deciding. With already long wait times and the myriad ways the courts can be tied up for years in procedural matters, regulatory enforcement will become impossible and regulatory capture will be guaranteed. If the politician in charge of the agency decides nothing will be enforced or chooses to engage in discriminatory enforcement it'll be years before a court challenge will resolve it, and depending on who appointed the judge it could just be an entirely pointless endeavor as a growing number of them were confirmed to their seats for their political loyalty rather than their judicial capability. It's most likely leading to complete gridlock while suits and countersuits and appeals all have to be thoroughly expended before anything can be done. Meanwhile our waters will be poisoned, our fisheries played out completely, the markets will finish consuming what remains of the middle class' wealth and our education system will be starved to death.
With more than a third of the people supporting a no compromise, burn it all down ideology there's no way to ever reach consensus, and with the intensity of foreign interference and propaganda targeting the US there's little chance of that ideology softening within my lifetime. I fear the de-evolution of our government will lead to abandonment of democracy in favor of an authoritarian system that is at least functionally responsive compared to what we're now left with.
6
u/undeadsasquatch 3d ago
This all sounds reasonable, I don't understand a lot of legal stuff though. I do have to ask, if this was a reasonable ruling why was the decision split along party lines? This is a genuine question and not an attempt to argue with you, but as Justices, surely the liberal ones understood all of this and yet still ruled against it?
11
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt 3d ago
In her dissent Jackson notes that a Jury found them guilty, so she is (in part) saying that is how the law should be interpreted, because a jury found it so.
It comes down to an ideological split. The liberal wing tends to want to view law as "living" in that the laws should be viewed through a modern lens and how it applies to modern society, and how they feel it should apply to modern society.
The conservative wing tend to be the traditionalists. They tend to rule on the law as it is written. It is written in stone. It can be re-written of course, but that is not the job of the court. That is the job of congress.
There are of course exceptions to this. The conservative wing have absolutely been "Judiciary activists" at times. But the main ideological split is whether the courts should rule on legality, or on morality.
As a window into the mind, let's look at Gorsuch and his infamous "Frozen Trucker" case:
It might be fair to ask whether TransAm’s decision was a wise or kind one. But it’s not our job to answer questions like that. Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one.
And that's the difference. There are liberal judges who decried his ruling as cruel. And yeah TransAms actions were cruel. And yes they DESERVED to be punished. But under the letter of the law, they couldn't.
3
11
u/randomaccount178 3d ago
Not quite. The law still applies to state officials, the law just doesn't cover gratuities, only bribes. There is a federal law against bribery that covers bribes and gratuities. They made a law against those receiving federal money (which generally is state officials) receiving bribes but it only had wording that matched the portion of the federal law which covers bribes and did not have language similar to the portion of the law covering gratuities.
This isn't even a case of congress writing shitty laws. They wrote the law originally to have wording similar to the gratuities provision. They went back and changes it two years later to have the higher standard of the bribes provision of the law. This was likely the intent of congress to only regulate bribery at the federal level. Gratuities can be, and are regulated at the state level for state officials.
→ More replies (2)2
u/horridpineapple 3d ago
Thank you for the interpretation. There's always that one guy who actually reads the shit. I might have to scroll a bit to find them but they're always there.
3
u/Delbert3US 3d ago
"Congress and only Congress can make laws" is something that is often overlooked when pointing fingers.
6
u/thecftbl 3d ago
I'm sorry sir, this is Reddit, we only read the article titles. Nuanced opinions and actual context have no place here.
8
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt 3d ago
We also downvote anything that goes against what we WANT to be true.
We don't want to be informed, we want to be mad.
Notice the highly upvoted comments are just "SCOTUS BAD!" but someone who actually provides an informative context that contradicts reddits desire to be mad is somehow "Controversial".
0
1
u/Kimoshnikov 3d ago
Thanks for the added context.
That said, I still appreciate folk's knee-jerk reactions to these things. There's already too much corruption, so being on high-alert, even if it's sometimes a false alarm, is important.
1
→ More replies (26)1
u/DoYouWantAQuacker 3d ago
This should be at the top of the thread. I get frustrated when mostly left wing Redditors bash right wingers for falling for rage bait articles and yet they do the same thing. This thread is a perfect example of how liberals can be just as easily manipulated as conservatives.
5
u/rtels2023 3d ago
This is an overly alarmist article/headline. Number 1, the ruling still allows state and local governments to make bribery illegal. Number 2, they didn’t say regulating bribery or gratuities federally was unconstitutional, they just said that wasn’t what the statute was saying. Therefore, Congress can, and should, write a law that specifically makes gratuities illegal on the federal level. Just because Congress passed a poorly written law doesn’t mean the courts should get to pretend it isn’t poorly written, even if that would result in an outcome that is a net positive for society. Instead, they should encourage Congress to write better, more specifically written laws that will prevent unelected officials from undermining the will of the people and their elected representatives.
1
u/mrtrailborn 1d ago
so bribery will be legal in shitholes, I mean, red states, and illegal in blue states
8
7
5
u/Drew1231 3d ago
They rules that it wasn’t against the law.
The Supreme Court doesn’t make the law.
Congress makes the law.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/rundownv2 2d ago
When was bribery not legal? Is that not what pacs and lobbies already do? Sure, you can't directly give a gift to a politician.... you just give a "donation" to their campaign.
2
2
2
5
u/whiskey_riverss 3d ago
Every single day I just get closer to giving up entirely. What can we as individuals even do at this point? Time to just keep our heads down and let it happen around us, hope for the best?
3
u/envybelmont 3d ago
I crossed the line a long time ago. There’s practically nothing that could happen that would restore my faith in the US government.
2
4
u/squidwurrd 3d ago
The headline on this post is misleading. The Supreme Court rules the scope of the specific law being addressed here only applies to the federal government which does not apply in this case. Local and state governments are responsible for writing these kind of laws.
We gotta stop lying to each other their rational makes perfect sense.
2
u/MeepleMerson 3d ago
To be fair, they are just covering their butts in case anyone started getting ideas about the grift members of the Supreme Court have been pulling down.
2
u/mekonsrevenge 3d ago
I live in Chicago. I could hear the politicians cheering in the Loop all the way up on the Northwest side. All they have to do is wait a few days to get that new Rolex and there's nothing the FBI can do about it.
2
u/disdainfulsideeye 3d ago
"The court’s conservative supermajority ruled 6-3 in Snyder v. United States, overturning the 2019 corruption conviction of an Indiana mayor who pocketed $13,000 from a local business tycoon after ensuring the company got a major town contract. The justices ruled that such bribes were not against the law."
Yet, Roberts claims he doesn't understand why the courts approval rating is so low.
1
1
1
1
1
u/B34rsl4y3 3d ago
Betting not one of you actually read the opinion handed down.
That includes the person who wrote the article.
1
1
1
1
u/Signal-Regret-8251 2d ago
Of course they did. This SCOTUS has made a mockery of the very principles we claim to hold as Americans and they have went all in for using politics for personal profit.
1
u/Upstairs-Lifeguard23 2d ago
Were are the angry mobs with torches, pickaxes and nooses breaking into the Supreme Court building?
1
u/Confusedandreticent 2d ago
Of course they did, they have the ability to make so much money right now. Impotent public and law enforcement that’s as corrupt and unjust as they are. Major downward spiral here. In the next few decades, we will see revolution. For good or bad, there will be violence in the state. Well, more than usual.
1
u/Upton_Ohgood 2d ago
So get pulled over and offer the cop money immediately is still illegal but you pay the cop after he lets you go it’s not.
1
1
u/wallyhasel 2d ago
Can we please say the supreme court of u.s.a, as they are becoming an outlier to normal countrys.
1
u/Rainbow-Mama 2d ago
But it’s ok as long as they do the thing you are paying them for BEFORE you give them the money/gold bars/fancy cars/new luxury RV….
1
1
u/Atchafalaya7 2d ago
What a silly article. It doesn’t even grapple the primary distinction in the law between bribes and gratuities, which both the majority and the dissent recognized. Do we have to keep hearing about the law from people who (apparently) can’t read it?
1
1
u/GeetchNixon 2d ago
These corrupt buffoons are so eager to destroy their last shred of legitimacy. I hope they got paid well for all their elite felating rulings.
1
1
1
u/Fragmentia 3d ago edited 3d ago
I'm still laughing at MAGA supporters who think Trump is going to drain the swamp. If you ask them if money in politics is bad, they'll all agree that its definitely bad. Somehow, they can't connect the dots that Republicans are the party making bribery legal. Even after Citizens United, they couldn't connect the dots. Trump is just as responsible for this as he is for Roe being overturned. In 2016, Trump at least had the outsider narrative. Now, after the entire party has bent the knee, people still try to use that narrative. If Trump was an outsider, the party wouldn't have rallied around him. JFC
1.9k
u/supercyberlurker 3d ago
I've said it before. Our country has the best politicians money can buy.