Lipstick on a Bailout

Just why are you stuck on the stupidity of referring to campaign finance laws?

What next, a different CYA such as claiming there is no laws pertaining to queers in congress?

Why are you stuck on the stupidity of referring to queers?

But for the campaign finance laws that allow official corruption, bought and paid for crooks like Frank and Dodd could be imprisoned for their official corruption.

ziggy wrote:

Just why are you stuck on the stupidity of referring to campaign finance laws?

What next, a different CYA such as claiming there is no laws pertaining to queers in congress?

Why are you stuck on the stupidity of referring to queers?.

Only you are so incapable as to be asking such a stupid question for lack of anything intelligent to say. Homos have been known as queers long, long before your mother made a really awful bad choice.

ziggy wrote: But for the campaign finance laws that allow official corruption, bought and paid for crooks like Frank and Dodd could be imprisoned for their official corruption.

OK smartass, cite me the campaign finance law(s) that specifically states or implies that members of Congress are not subject to sanctions and/or prosecution for failure to perform the sworn duties of their Office or Committee assignments or duties.

Your iodicy really irritates me at times.

Of course, you take pride in that ..........don't you.

BUT THEN, everyone has to have something, anything, to be proud of.

.

Your iodicy really irritates me at times.

But not nearly as much as it irritates me. I have had to learn to live with it. But you can ignore it if you don't like it.

Actually I think you are both somewhat right here.

While I understand the argument for free speech extending to one's money and I by no means am knowledgeable of campaign finance laws, I do have a huge problem with corporations making huge donations to candidates and members of congress, particularly those that have oversight over said corporation. I'm not sure exactly what the solution is but I agree with Frank, the financial industry has got pretty much what they paid for over the past 15 years or so and that has led directly to the current crisis.

By the same token, I'm quite sure Sam is correct when he states that Congress should be punishable for failure to uphold their sworn duties and I also believe the FBI should be looking at members of Congress to see if any wrongdoing occurred. If it did they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

OK smartass, cite me the campaign finance law(s) that specifically states or implies that members of Congress are not subject to sanctions and/or prosecution for failure to perform the sworn duties of their Office or Committee assignments or duties.

First we have to establish that members of Congress have failed to perform their sworn duties. Political disagreements of U.S. Senators about economic polices do not constitute a criminal "failure to perform".

Except for the campaign finance laws, bribery of public officeholders would be a crime- as would be looking the other way when the bribers' interests wouild be threatened by regulatory intervention. But if the bribery is called "campaign contributions", both the briber and the bribee are exonerated of criminal responsibility- no matter how onerous the social or fiscal fallout.

Is it an accident of history that the likes of Frank and Dodd and other financial committee members are the largest recipients of campaign dollars from financial institutions and lobbyists? NOT!

Are we to believe that nods and winks and "Don't worry, be happy" talk in the face of imminent failures of Fannie Mae and other financial institutions are not related to those political contributions to fiscal committeee members and committee chairs?

ziggy wrote:
Except for the campaign finance laws, bribery of public officeholders would be a crime- as would be looking the other way when the bribers' interests wouild be threatened by regulatory intervention. But if the bribery is called "campaign contributions", both the briber and the bribee are exonerated of criminal responsibility- no matter how onerous the social or fiscal fallout.

The bribee (Congress here) is not exonerated from doing their job if criminal farud is committed by overstating income, growth and financical stability to improve employee compensation.

By the same token, I'm quite sure Sam is correct when he states that Congress should be punishable for failure to uphold their sworn duties and I also believe the FBI should be looking at members of Congress to see if any wrongdoing occurred. If it did they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

But when it is Congress that MAKES the law, do we really expect that they don't leave loopholes allowing themselves legal exoneration from their "failure to perform"?

After all, the duty of Congress is to make law, not enforce it. It is the duty of administrative agencies created by Congress to carry out the law.

ziggy wrote:

OK smartass, cite me the campaign finance law(s) that specifically states or implies that members of Congress are not subject to sanctions and/or prosecution for failure to perform the sworn duties of their Office or Committee assignments or duties.

First we have to establish that members of Congress have failed to perform their sworn duties. Political disagreements of U.S. Senators about economic polices do not constitute a criminal "failure to perform".

NO, .... first you have to cite me "those campaign finance laws that allow official corruption" as per your claim in your above post.

Your attempt to circumvent answering said and/or your failure/refusal to do so at this time only proves your are a blowhard POS with no creditability whatsoever.

Take that tripe you post to a scroungy garage or truckstop somewhere and try to reclaim your position of "know-it-all" authority among your lesser peers.



,

The bribee (Congress here) is not exonerated from doing their job if criminal farud is committed by overstating income, growth and financical stability to improve employee compensation.

What is the "job" of Congress when that happens? Members of Congress are not doing the overstating. That is done by the fiscal institution and its executives. Congress is not a law enforcement agency.

But there are administrative agencies with direct responsibility for addressing such fraud as you point out on the part of financial institutions. As discussed earlier on another thread, over the past 15 years or so Congress has been complicit in relaxing the fiscal institution regulatory structures. That may have been unwise, and it is likely related to campaign contributions by fiscal lobbyists and institutions to members of Congress. But it does not represent fraud on the part of Congress members- only business as usual- and which is quite legal under current campaign finance laws.

ziggy wrote:

By the same token, I'm quite sure Sam is correct when he states that Congress should be punishable for failure to uphold their sworn duties and I also believe the FBI should be looking at members of Congress to see if any wrongdoing occurred. If it did they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

But when it is Congress that MAKES the law, do we really expect that they don't leave loopholes allowing themselves legal exoneration from their "failure to perform"?

After all, the duty of Congress is to make law, not enforce it. It is the duty of administrative agencies created by Congress to carry out the law.

Unless you can cite the loopholes you're pretty much


As for the agencies you refer to, they answer to Congress as well. If a Congressional committee such as the banking committee wants someone investigated for wrongdoing or fraud or for any other reason, then investigated they shall be. And if you believe otherwise, let me tell you about some oceanfront property in Iowa.

So are you telling us that Congress is charged with prosecuting itself for fraud committed by financial institutions?

I don't know for certain members of Congress can be tried for treason, or any other crime, for failing to honor the oath they swear. I'm sort of doubting it, or Congressman Paul would surely have suggested it by now.

However, they can be prosecuted for accepting bribes and for fraud. How successful the prosecution would be depends on a number of factors, but historically it's not too good. That doesn't mean our justice system should do nothing and just give these criminals who are elected officials should get a pass.

The FBI should be investigating them too.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:

OK smartass, cite me the campaign finance law(s) that specifically states or implies that members of Congress are not subject to sanctions and/or prosecution for failure to perform the sworn duties of their Office or Committee assignments or duties.

First we have to establish that members of Congress have failed to perform their sworn duties. Political disagreements of U.S. Senators about economic polices do not constitute a criminal "failure to perform".

NO, .... first you have to cite me "those campaign finance laws that allow official corruption" as per your claim in your above post.

Your attempt to circumvent answering said and/or your failure/refusal to do so at this time only proves your are a blowhard POS with no creditability whatsoever.

Take that tripe you post to a scroungy garage or truckstop somewhere and try to reclaim your position of "know-it-all" authority among your lesser peers.

,

Walk proudly, Sam.

We all wish that we were so insightful and blessed with such eloquence as you demonstrate here.

ziggy wrote:But it does not represent fraud on the part of Congress members- only business as usual- and which is quite legal under current campaign finance laws.

Raines and others have committed the fraud and that is their crime. Obstruction of justice would be one possible crime of those in Congress.

Additionally, Congressmen take an oath of office and must abide by that as well.

"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

At the very least, failure to report the fraud would not be in line with discharging their duties and is grounds for expulsion from Congress.

I realize you NEVER find fault with a government employee other then GWB or LBJ but in this case, you’re wrong Frank. When Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and whoever else knew about FM's overstatements, they failed to discharge their duties, they obstructed justice, they were accomplices in fraud and that's likely the tip of the ice berg. The FBI should investigate and heads should roll.

Stephanie wrote:I don't know for certain members of Congress can be tried for treason, or any other crime, for failing to honor the oath they swear. I'm sort of doubting it, or Congressman Paul would surely have suggested it by now.

However, they can be prosecuted for accepting bribes and for fraud.

What bribes and fraud? Is there evidence if any such- other than perfectly legal campaign contributions?

How successful the prosecution would be depends on a number of factors,

Yes, and including the law on which such prosecution would need to be based.

but historically it's not too good. That doesn't mean our justice system should do nothing and just give these criminals who are elected officials should get a pass.

The FBI should be investigating them too.

OK. As the Man said, bring it on.

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:

OK smartass, cite me the campaign finance law(s) that specifically states or implies that members of Congress are not subject to sanctions and/or prosecution for failure to perform the sworn duties of their Office or Committee assignments or duties.

First we have to establish that members of Congress have failed to perform their sworn duties. Political disagreements of U.S. Senators about economic polices do not constitute a criminal "failure to perform".

NO, .... first you have to cite me "those campaign finance laws that allow official corruption" as per your claim in your above post.

Your attempt to circumvent answering said and/or your failure/refusal to do so at this time only proves your are a blowhard POS with no creditability whatsoever.

Take that tripe you post to a scroungy garage or truckstop somewhere and try to reclaim your position of "know-it-all" authority among your lesser peers.

,

Walk proudly, Sam.

We all wish that we were so insightful and blessed with such eloquence as you demonstrate here.

I don't. It works for Sam but it wouldn't work for me. I'm a different type of butthole.

What I wish is that you would answer Sam's original question and cite the campaign laws he challeneged you on.

To answer Ziggy's original question:

On the hook", how? Charged with crime(s)? What crime(s)?

Yes, pending the outcome of the FBI's investigation and the application of federal law.

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:I don't know for certain members of Congress can be tried for treason, or any other crime, for failing to honor the oath they swear. I'm sort of doubting it, or Congressman Paul would surely have suggested it by now.

However, they can be prosecuted for accepting bribes and for fraud.

What bribes and fraud? Is there evidence if any such- other than perfectly legal campaign contributions?

How successful the prosecution would be depends on a number of factors,

Yes, and including the law on which such prosecution would need to be based.

but historically it's not too good. That doesn't mean our justice system should do nothing and just give these criminals who are elected officials should get a pass.

The FBI should be investigating them too.

OK. As the Man said, bring it on.

Oh, I'd say there is some pretty clear and compelling video taped evidence of fraud being perpetrated by members of congress regarding the accounting practices, profit margins and bonus received by executives of the GSE's.

When the federal regulators, charged with oversight of these agencies, issue reports showing evidence of fraudulent accounting practices, overstated profits, and of "bonuses" that are much higher than yearly salaries, and members of the Congressional committee charged with oversight of these agencies lie about the veracity of the reports, and the sworn testimony of the regulators, that is fraud. When these same members of Congress use the lies they tell as an excuse to take no corrective action, that is certainly an abuse of power. This is available for anyone to view. These hearings are video taped.

It isn't too much of a leap to think that these elected officials, had reasons for lying and not living up to their obligations. There are reasons why they failed to follow the oaths they swore to. It certainly warrants and investigation.

It is very likely some, if not all, of these members of Congress were receiving some sort of compensation for turning a blind eye to these crimes. I doubt very much all of this compensation to all of these congressmen was in the form of perfectly legal campaign contributions.

What was the motive for the fraud they committed? Did they do it out of the great love and admiration they all had for these crooks? These questions deserve answers.

Even if no money or goods or services changed hands illegally, that does not change the fact that their lies and their cover up of the truth were crimes against the American people. Nor does it relieve them of their obligation to fulfill the oath of office they took.

Am I the only person here who believes that a thorough investigation of some members of Congress might not lead to the discovery of hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash hidden in freezers, under mattresses, and the odd off-shore account or two?

I think it will lead to that and then some, likely the 3 c's; condo's, cars and coochy momma’s.

Also money for failed Presidential campaign's (Dodd's-I doubt they would get far with Paul) as well as hundreds of other gifts and gratuities.

While I think most in Washington are genuinely good people who started their political careers for ideological reasons, I’ve no doubt that money corrupts and a great many couldn’t survive an investigation which is why we will not see an investigation.

Well no investigation no getting rid of the bums. Those Massholes will reelect Frank until he's pushing daisies, and I'm sure the same can be said about the constituents of Dodd & many of the others.

Perhaps "we" deserve this.

NO, .... first you have to cite me "those campaign finance laws that allow official corruption" as per your claim in your above post.

http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/fec/bpcmpnrfrmact2002.pdf

SEC. 307. MODIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.
(a) INCREASE IN INDIVIDUAL LIMITS FOR CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS.—
Section 315(a)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) is amended—
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘$1,000’’ and inserting
‘‘$2,000’’; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘$20,000’’ and inserting
‘‘$25,000’’.
(b) INCREASE IN ANNUAL AGGREGATE LIMIT ON INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS.—
Section 315(a)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(3) During the period which begins on January 1 of an oddnumbered
year and ends on December 31 of the next even-numbered
year, no individual may make contributions aggregating more
than—
H. R. 2356—23
‘‘(A) $37,500, in the case of contributions to candidates
and the authorized committees of candidates;
‘‘(B) $57,500, in the case of any other contributions, of
which not more than $37,500 may be attributable to contributions
to political committees which are not political committees
of national political parties.’’.
(c) INCREASE IN SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE LIMIT.—
Section 315(h) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 441a(h)) is amended by striking ‘‘$17,500’’ and inserting
‘‘$35,000’’.

Within those limits, bribery and corruption of public officials is all fine and dandy under the law.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
cor·rup·tion /kəˈrʌpʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-ruhp-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the act of corrupting or state of being corrupt.
2. moral perversion; depravity.
3. perversion of integrity.
4. corrupt or dishonest proceedings.
5. bribery.
6. debasement or alteration, as of language or a text.
7. a debased form of a word.
8. putrefactive decay; rottenness.
9. any corrupting influence or agency.

[Origin: 1300–50; ME corrupcio(u)n (< AF) < L corruptiōn-, s. of corruptiō. See corrupt, -ion]

—Synonyms 2. dissolution, immorality. 8. rot, putrefaction, putrescence, foulness, pollution, contamination.
—Antonyms 1–3. purity. 3, 4. honesty.

10 dictionary results for: bribe
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
bribe /braɪb/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[brahyb] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, bribed, brib·ing.
–noun 1. money or any other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting the behavior of a person, esp. in that person's performance as an athlete, public official, etc.: The motorist offered the arresting officer a bribe to let him go.
2. anything given or serving to persuade or induce: The children were given candy as a bribe to be good.
–verb (used with object) 3. to give or promise a bribe to: They bribed the reporter to forget about what he had seen.
4. to influence or corrupt by a bribe: The judge was too honest to be bribed.
–verb (used without object) 5. to give a bribe; practice bribery.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1350–1400; ME < MF: remnant of food given as alms, said to be < an expressive base *bri(m)b- denoting something small]

—Related forms
brib·a·ble, bribe·a·ble, adjective
brib·a·bil·i·ty, bribe·a·bil·i·ty, noun
brib·ee, noun
briber, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This bribe (brīb) Pronunciation Key
n.
Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct.
Something serving to influence or persuade.

v. bribed, brib·ing, bribes

v. tr.
To give, offer, or promise a bribe to.

v. intr.
To give, offer, or promise bribes.


[Middle English, from Old French, piece of bread given as alms.]

brib'a·ble adj., brib'er n.


(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
bribe (n.)

1386, "thing stolen," from O.Fr. "morsel of bread given to beggars," from briber "to beg," a general Romantic word, of uncertain origin. Shift of meaning to "gift given to influence corruptly" is first attested 1535.


Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This bribe

noun
1. payment made to a person in a position of trust to corrupt his judgment

verb
1. make illegal payments to in exchange for favors or influence; "This judge can be bought"


WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: bribe
Function: noun
: a benefit (as money) given, promised, or offered in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust (as an official or witness) —compare KICKBACK


Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: bribe
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: bribed; brib·ing
: to influence (a person) by giving a bribe


Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Bribe

Bribe\, n. [F. bribe a lump of bread, scraps, leavings of meals (that are generally given to a beggar), LL. briba scrap of bread; cf. OF. briber, brifer, to eat gluttonously, to beg, and OHG. bilibi food.]

1. A gift begged; a present. [Obs.] --Chaucer.

2. A price, reward, gift, or favor bestowed or promised with a view to prevent the judgment or corrupt the conduct of a judge, witness, voter, or other person in a position of trust.

Undue reward for anything against justice is a bribe. --Hobart.

3. That which seduces; seduction; allurement.

Not the bribes of sordid wealth can seduce to leave these ever?blooming sweets. --Akenside.


Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Bribe

Bribe\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Bribed; p. pr. & vb. n. Bribing.]

1. To rob or steal. [Obs.] --Chaucer.

2. To give or promise a reward or consideration to (a judge, juror, legislator, voter, or other person in a position of trust) with a view to prevent the judgment or corrupt the conduct; to induce or influence by a bribe; to give a bribe to.

Neither is he worthy who bribes a man to vote against his conscience. --F. W. Robertson.

3. To gain by a bribe; of induce as by a bribe.


Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Bribe

Bribe\, v. i. 1. To commit robbery or theft. [Obs.]

2. To give a bribe to a person; to pervert the judgment or corrupt the action of a person in a position of trust, by some gift or promise.

An attempt to bribe, though unsuccessful, has been holden to be criminal, and the offender may be indicted. --Bouvier.

The bard may supplicate, but cannot bribe. --Goldsmith.


Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Bribe

None to be taken; "for the gift maketh open eyes blind, and perverteth the cause of the righteous

Corruption and bribery is what most of us have been talking about all day here.

And whatever of it is done within and under the campaign finance laws, it is not criminal and it is not evidence of legal malfeasance nor of failure to perform as per some oath. That is one reason why Congress enacted McCain-Feingold legislation- to increase the thresholds of legal bribery and corruption.