corruption – Lone Candle

Trump & Elon Break Up Over the Tax Bill | Prof G Markets

Posted on June 11, 2025June 11, 2025 by Lone Candle

Trump crypto coins are a problem because people, including foreign governments and organizations, can tell Trump or one of his associates that they will purchase an exact amount of coin tomorrow at an exact time in exchange for certain presidential actions by Trump. Trump will know who paid him and for what, but it will be untraceable by anyone else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LvcKSLX4O0

How Trump is Cashing In on the Presidency | The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart

Posted on May 16, 2025 by Lone Candle

Trump repeatedly acts corruptly, and our institutions are not working properly to stop it.

The Congress should investigate and possibly impeach for such corruption, but the Speaker of the House dismisses it as false claims while saying that what the Biden crime family did was worse, even though those allegations are misleading bullshit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQcWxiu9GwE

Order to drop New York Mayor Adams’ case roils Justice Department as high-ranking officials resign

Posted on February 14, 2025February 14, 2025 by Lone Candle

“The departures amounted to a stunning condemnation of the actions of the department’s leadership just days after a close Trump ally, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, was sworn in as attorney general. Just three weeks into Trump’s second term, the department has been rocked by firings, transfers and resignations.
Adams pleaded not guilty last September to charges that while in his prior role as Brooklyn borough president, he accepted over $100,000 in illegal campaign contributions and lavish travel perks such as expensive flight upgrades, luxury hotel stays and even a trip to a bathhouse from people wanting to buy his influence. He has denied any wrongdoing.

Federal agents had also been investigating some of Adams’ aides. It was unclear what will happen to that part of the investigation.

In a memo Monday, Bove had directed Sassoon to drop the case as soon as practicable, so the mayor of America’s largest city could help with Trump’s immigration crackdown and could himself campaign for reelection unencumbered by criminal charges. Adams faces multiple challengers in June’s primary.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/manhattan-us-attorney-resigns-refusing-192647391.html

USAID Paying for Politico Is a Nontroversy

Posted on February 7, 2025February 7, 2025 by Lone Candle

“the $8 million figure represents total government expenditures to Politico since 2016, not USAID dollars specifically. The amount paid by USAID to Politico totals $44,000.
A government agency directly transferring cash to a journalistic outlet that’s supposed to cover it impartially might still constitute a scandal; in general, the feds should not subsidize journalistic projects. But importantly, USAID was not generously donating the money to Politico—the government paid the money in exchange for subscriptions to Politico’s premium content. This is a pretty important difference; USAID is paying for the service Politico provides, in much the same way that a government agency has to pay for janitorial services, electricity, or office supplies. If a federal office buys a new printer, it isn’t necessarily malicious. It could be malicious, if the printer costs too much money, is defective, or was purchased as part of some kickback scheme—but the reality that government offices need printers isn’t really up for argument.

When confronted with these facts, many of the conservative social media accounts asserted that something must be awry, since $44,000 is still way too much for a Politico subscription. They assume that USAID is overpaying in exchange for favorable coverage of progressive causes and unfavorable coverage of Trump.

But that’s not what USAID and the other government agencies are paying for. In truth, Politico’s premium product isn’t political news coverage, progressively slanted or otherwise: It’s minute-to-minute updates on regulatory decisions that impact specific industries. This is information that political and government agencies need and that Politico supplies, for a premium price. As independent journalist Lee Fang points out, Politico isn’t the only game in town: Bloomberg and LexisNexis run similar services. Politico’s price tag is comparable to theirs.

“Politico provides paywalled ‘pro’ subscription services that cost over $10,000 per login for up-to-the-minute, detailed reporting on policy decisions and regulations,” writes Fang. “The $8.1 million in Politico subscriptions referenced above relates to years of subscriptions by agency officials across the government.”

These services are clearly valuable—in fact, Republican legislators pay for them, too. Customers of Politico’s services include Rep. Lauren Boebert (R–Colo.), Rep. Elise Stefanik (R–N.Y.), and even Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R–La.). Republicans want their staffers well informed of legislative updates. Corie Whalen, a communications director for former Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.), notes that it would be both impractical and ultimately more expensive to expect legislative staff to gather the necessary information some other way.”

https://reason.com/2025/02/06/usaid-paying-for-politico-is-a-nontroversy/

The Supreme Court rules that state officials can engage in a little corruption, as a treat

Posted on July 28, 2024July 28, 2024 by Lone Candle

“On a 6-3 party-line vote, the Supreme Court ruled..that state officials may accept “gratuities” from people who wish to reward them for their official actions, despite a federal anti-corruption statute that appears to ban such rewards.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion in Snyder v. United States for the Court’s Republican-appointed majority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent on behalf of the Court’s three Democratic appointees.

Snyder turns on a distinction between “bribes” and “gratuities.” As Kavanaugh writes, “bribes are payments made or agreed to before an official act in order to influence the official with respect to that future official act.” Gratuities, by contrast, “are typically payments made to an official after an official act as a token of appreciation.” (Emphasis added.)”

…

” As Jackson writes in her dissent, the most natural reading of this statute is that it targets both bribes (payments that “influenced” a future decision) and gratuities (payments that “rewarded” a past decision). As Jackson writes,

” veryone knows what a reward is. It is a $20 bill pulled from a lost wallet at the time of its return to its grateful owner. A surprise ice cream outing after a report card with straight As. The bar tab picked up by a supervisor celebrating a job well done by her team. A reward often says “thank you” or “good job,” rather than “please.””

Jackson argues that the statute should be read to prohibit “rewards corruptly accepted by government officials in ways that are functionally indistinguishable from taking a bribe,” much like the payment at issue in this case appears to be.”

…

“Kavanaugh’s strongest argument is that the law makes it a very serious crime, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, for a federal official to accept a bribe, but federal officials who accept gratuities only risk two years in prison. Meanwhile, the statute at issue in Snyder, which only applies to state officials, applies a 10-year sentence across the board. So Kavanaugh argues that it would be odd to read the law to draw a sharp distinction between bribes and gratuities given to federal officials but to make no distinction when state officials accept a gift.

In any event, the decision in Snyder is narrow. It does not rule that Congress could not ban gratuities. It simply rules that this particular statute only reaches bribes. That said, the Court’s Republican majority also has a long history of imposing constitutional limits on the government’s ability to fight corruption and restrict money in politics.”

https://www.vox.com/scotus/357170/supreme-court-snyder-united-states-corruption