|
@waltshaub | |||||
|
No. I didn't say bribe. I was talking about wanting to close the loophole created by this case: supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/…
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
Walter Shaub
@waltshaub
|
Jul 30 |
|
Alfred Hernandez
@alfredanchor
|
Jul 31 |
|
I like yr ethics & campaign finance disclosure initiatives, but I heard you say a bribe before taking office is legal & it IS NOT
|
||
|
|
Alfred Hernandez
@alfredanchor
|
Jul 31 |
|
When u were talking abt candidates accepting money before taking office as oppossed 2 afterwords, 18 USC s 201 et seq -same thing
|
||
|
|
Walter Shaub
@waltshaub
|
Jul 31 |
|
It's not. Take a look at the case. I think you'll find it interesting.
|
||
|
|
Alfred Hernandez
@alfredanchor
|
Jul 31 |
|
I'll be glad to look, but regardless of what court may've said, 36 USC s. 501 et seq. 18 USC s. 201 -make it illegal.
|
||
|
|
Walter Shaub
@waltshaub
|
Jul 31 |
|
We're talking @ different things. I'm talking about a payment Supreme Court decided could be accepted. There's no appealing a Sup Ct opinion
|
||
|
|
Alfred Hernandez
@alfredanchor
|
Jul 31 |
|
That's where u're wrong, unless yr argument is that courts are corrupt, in which case I full agree. New case can be filed 4 cause
|
||
|
|
Alfred Hernandez
@alfredanchor
|
Jul 31 |
|
More specific. Same happened w/ Sen Menendez, VA Gov McDonnell, etc. which are bandaids for Citizens U -where SCOTUS rewrote law
|
||
|
|
Alfred Hernandez
@alfredanchor
|
Jul 31 |
|
SCOTUS inappropriately intrrpreted & applied First Amdt, 18 USC, sec 201 et seq., 18 USC, sec 1951, & 36 USC, s. 501-510, period
|
||