Is this similar to the Clinton Foundation suspicions of paying for access? Or the difference (spouse vs. lawyer) is more favorable in one case?
This might be huge if SCOTUS hadn't made bribery for meetings legal. https://twitter.com/gregpinelo/status/993971566038921217 …
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
-
Both are wrong, IMO (and I consistently spoke out against CF). I'm making a legal observation, that SCOTUS has made it really hard to prosecute this.
-
Got it. I thought there might be some difference that makes one case even more difficult to condemn/punish (I.e. spouse or attorneyattorney-client) or they're comparable...
-
Coming from the nonprofit finance world -- the Cohen case seems enormously more problematic. There are many enforced laws preventing private inurement in nonprofits. Donations to CF couldn't & didn't personally benefit either Bill or Hillary. This looks like a straight bribe.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Seriously, Chris, you need to call out SCOTUS on this. Remind America that Roberts says this kind of thing is the "very essence of democracy" and Kennedy chimed in that such payments do not give the appearance of corruption.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In America Money is God, if someone wants to give you more God why is that a bad thing? Hmmmm ??
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Jails ain't big enough to hold most of K Street, folks
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
These documents were seized by
@FBI How or why is Stormy’s attorney releasing this info????Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
a question I’ve been thinking about is whether, in another context, Cohen would fall under the definition of foreign official for FCPA purposes
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yeah, totally normal to pay $400k for a meeting without expecting anything to come from it
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
are democrats against corporate speaking fees again? sigh
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Sadly true. Supremes made bribery almost impossible to prove, even when there is no question money was taken by or for an elected official.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Guess this wouldn’t be considered pay to play like HRC?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
they dont have that power
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As long as money equals speech than bribery equals speech it's just that simple.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What's the case that did this? I'd love to look into it more.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Because bribery is speech! Sigh.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Did SCOTUS do that or did the statute do it?https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/993978473969483782 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
WTH did Cohen do with all the money he was getting
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.