3 ms·

> The question before the Supreme Court was only whether 18 USC 666 requires proof that the payment did or could influence the official act. And the Supreme Co

> The question before the Supreme Court was only whether 18 USC 666 requires proof that the payment did or could influence the official act. And the Supreme Court's finding is that it did not because the payment happened after the action. Certainly corrupt officials in the future will never figure out a way to exploit this loophole. This isn't the first corruption case before the court where the standard of proof seems to be "they need to write 'This is a bribe' on the notes line of the check for it to count".

rayiner 2y ago
> And the Supreme Court's finding is that it did not because the payment happened after the action. It doesn’t have to do with the timing of the payment. It has to do with whether the defendant had a corrupt motive at the time he took the official act. The government could have prosecuted this case under the same statute by saying: “he knew he was going to get paid later so he steered the contracts to this company.” They had the evidence to pursue that theory of the case. The jury could have inferred under the circumstances that the after the fact payment effected the official act. If they had done that this Supreme Court decision would’ve had no effect on the outcome. The government instead made the choice to prosecute this case by having the jury instructed that it did not matter what the defendant was thinking at the time of the official act. That was the government’s choice. This case just means that when the government brings a case under 18 U.S.C. 666–which is titled “theft or bribery”—they actually have to prove bribery, which requires corrupt motive at the time of the official act. If the government wants to target the appearance of impropriety that can result from payments for official acts that weren’t corrupt at the time, there’s different laws for that (18 U.S.C. 201(c)).

rayiner 2y ago

> And the Supreme Court's finding is that it did not because the payment happened after the action. It doesn’t have to do with the timing of the payment. It has to do with whether the defendant had a corrupt motive at the time he took the official act. The government could have prosecuted this case under the same statute by saying: “he knew he was going to get paid later so he steered the contracts to this company.” They had the evidence to pursue that theory of the case. The jury could have inferred under the circumstances that the after the fact payment effected the official act. If they had done that this Supreme Court decision would’ve had no effect on the outcome. The government instead made the choice to prosecute this case by having the jury instructed that it did not matter what the defendant was thinking at the time of the official act. That was the government’s choice. This case just means that when the government brings a case under 18 U.S.C. 666–which is titled “theft or bribery”—they actually have to prove bribery, which requires corrupt motive at the time of the official act. If the government wants to target the appearance of impropriety that can result from payments for official acts that weren’t corrupt at the time, there’s different laws for that (18 U.S.C. 201(c)).