BRIBES and GIFTS
The United States Supreme Court, (SCOTUS), has done it again! They conveniently, possibly to protect themselves, do not recognize the real difference between a bribe and a gift. If you are a sitting judge and I promise to “take care of you” if you rule my way, and you rule in my favor; then a short time later I make a gift of $36,000.00 to you and you accept it, it seems to be just fine with the Court. It’s pure and clean, tax free and just a nice thing to do. Wake up! Other than the “favor”, I had no reason to make the judge a substantial gift. It’s obviously a payoff and payment of a bribe.
In the recent Snyder v. United States case, Mayor Snyder accepted a $13,000.00 “gift“ from the trash company after he had the city purchase five of their trucks for over $1,000,000.00. The Court gave us a lesson in the law by ruling that bribes are payments BEFORE an act, to induce the act and gifts are payments AFTER the improper act to express our appreciation. Appreciation for what? For making a corrupt decision! The SCOTUS ruling allows a judge who rules in your favor to keep the “gift”. There are no tax consequences since there is an $18,000.00 individual annual exemption for gifts and a lifetime allowance for each of us to gift a total of over $13,600,000.00. The tax obligation and the duty to report is on the donor.
How can a prosecutor prove that the promise to gift or bribe an official existed before the official, relying on that promise, performed the corrupt act? Once an official accepts a benefit from someone with whom he or she has had official dealings the prosecutor should be able to go into the details of the transaction to determine if the official benefitted by giving the donor an improper preference. That is a bribe. Whether the payoff was made before or after the improper act, it’s still a bribe.
What about all the laws prohibiting State and local officials from accepting gifts or honoraria for making speeches? What is the reasonable value of a speech? Did President Reagan receive $2,000,000.00 for making a speech in Japan after he reduced import taxes on Japanese cars? Did President Bush receive $1,000,000.00 for making a speech in Kuwait after we repulsed the Iranian invasion and restored the gold bathroom fixtures in Kuwait? These sound like prohibited gifts from foreign governments. Did Hillary Clinton receive large sums of money for making some speeches on Wall Street?
What about families of officials engaging in the “consulting” business? It’s easier to get the ear of an official if you hire his wife’s consulting firm at a high price. Many companies employ the official’s family members at “no show” jobs. What about all the congressmen who get defeated and get lucrative jobs at nonprofit foundations to whom they were helpful when they were in office?
In our opinion the Snyder case is a license for the Trump administration to take juicy bribes with immunity. Did the Trump policy towards Quatar affect their decision to make a loan on the 666 Fifth Avenue Building to the President’s son in law?
As SCOTUS considered that their own justices may be the beneficiaries of the gift that the court majority has given to them in Synder v. United States?
Foreign policies, alliances, economic support and arms deliveries can change based on the amounts gifted to the President’s relatives or the occupancy rate at his golf course hotels or the amounts his family members are paid for making speeches. In any event, thanks to SCOTUS, if the bribe is related to an “official act” the President will be immune.
GOD BLESS OUR WAR HEROES AND GOD BLESS AMERICA!