RE: Snyder
Jackson in her dissent notes that the defendant in this case was convicted by a jury of violating the federal law after he steered more than $1 million in city contracts to a local truck dealership, which then gave him a check for $13,000 as a consulting fee. “Snyder’s absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s Court could love,” Jackson writes.
“ Jackson in her dissent notes that the defendant in this case was convicted by a jury of violating the federal law after he steered more than $1 million in city contracts to a local truck dealership, which then gave him a check for $13,000 as a consulting fee. “Snyder’s absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s Court could love,” Jackson writes.”
—————-
For once, I actually agree with this Leftist hack. The simple fact is that you don’t only consider a bribe money paid before a government official takes an action, it is just common sense to understand that there could be a conversation at a restaurant or on a golf course that is not recorded, which says “if you do X for me, I will pay you money later as a “consulting fee.”“ What this idiotic decision did was to simply wink at the latter method of bribing public officials, which I have to assume is already quite common, but which will now become the rule.
Now, on the other hand, apparently the issue decided upon in this case was whether there was federal jurisdiction, versus only state and/or local jurisdiction. I have honestly not familiar enough, with the facts of this case to be able to pass judgment on that issue. But, again, Jackson was correct in her assessment of post action payments possibly being just as much of a bribe as pre-action payments.