I have no doubt that the corruption is real, but that’s sort of beside the point, since corruption is essentially universal in Washington. There has to be some reason that they focused on him specifically when they legitimately could charge pretty much anyone and everyone. Charging one Washington politician with corruption is sort of like charging one Burning Man attendee with drug possession.
Right, but that doesn’t answer my question. If anything, it makes me more curious, since this isn’t the first time he’s been singled out for doing the same thing that virtually all of them do as a matter of course.
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing - quite the contrary. Charging (and preferably removing from office and imprisoning) corrupt politicians is not only a good thing, but arguably the single best thing we could do as a nation right now. Official corruption is at the heart of virtually every single ill that this country currently suffers.
But it’s notably a thing that’s almost never prosecuted, in spite of the fact that it’s not only widespread, but often brazen.
So again, I’m just curious what’s special about him - why a government that generally turns a blind eye to corruption has chosen to prosecute this particular instance of it.
As this is the second time I suspect that’s the motivating factor. Also NY state is charging him NOT the feds so it might be its because he’s got no protection
I wonder what this is really about.
I have no doubt that the corruption is real, but that’s sort of beside the point, since corruption is essentially universal in Washington. There has to be some reason that they focused on him specifically when they legitimately could charge pretty much anyone and everyone. Charging one Washington politician with corruption is sort of like charging one Burning Man attendee with drug possession.
Maybe someone didn’t get their cut so they talked to the feds.
He’s been tried in the Senate previously for accepting bribes.
Right, but that doesn’t answer my question. If anything, it makes me more curious, since this isn’t the first time he’s been singled out for doing the same thing that virtually all of them do as a matter of course.
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing - quite the contrary. Charging (and preferably removing from office and imprisoning) corrupt politicians is not only a good thing, but arguably the single best thing we could do as a nation right now. Official corruption is at the heart of virtually every single ill that this country currently suffers.
But it’s notably a thing that’s almost never prosecuted, in spite of the fact that it’s not only widespread, but often brazen.
So again, I’m just curious what’s special about him - why a government that generally turns a blind eye to corruption has chosen to prosecute this particular instance of it.
Im not sure everyone does this quite like he has.
As this is the second time I suspect that’s the motivating factor. Also NY state is charging him NOT the feds so it might be its because he’s got no protection