>I don't think what Rajiv wanted is really relevant here, he supported Hillary and was rewarded for it in a very inappropriate manner, that's corruption. For b

>I don't think what Rajiv wanted is really relevant here, he supported Hillary and was rewarded for it in a very inappropriate manner, that's corruption. For better or worse (probably worse), or current definition of corruption necessitates a quid pro quo. Using your Thai cop analogy, its possible that said cop could attempt to extort a powerful Thai politician who could have them prosecuted. However, that doesn't make their prosecution any less corrupt, nor does it address the incentives that make extortion so commonplace to begin with. Will the police force be any less corrupt after they are gone? It is simply swapping out one corrupt individual with another, and life goes on. I'm saying if I have a problem with the practice, I'm going to try and change the process - not simply charge the last person holding the hot potato.