XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics   
   XPost: alt.government.employees, talk.politics.guns   
   From: democrat-insurrection@mail.house.gov   
      
   https://gothamist.com/news/quiz-was-nyc-mayor-adams-given-a-bribe-or-a-   
   gratuity-the-difference-is-a-big-deal   
      
   Mayor Eric Adams says he wasn’t being bribed when Turkish nationals gave   
   him more than $100,000 worth of business-class plane tickets, luxurious   
   hotel suites and ritzy nights out on the town in Istanbul.   
      
   Federal prosecutors disagree. They say the glamorous travel perks were   
   bribes that Adams accepted in exchange for pressuring FDNY officials to   
   allow a new Turkish consulate to open before the building could pass a   
   safety inspection.   
      
   On Friday, both sides will make their arguments in court at the first   
   major hearing in Adams’ federal corruption case. The mayor’s attorneys are   
   asking a judge to throw out the bribery charge in his five-count   
   indictment.   
      
   Adams’ argument hinges on a few recent U.S. Supreme Court cases that legal   
   experts say have made it harder to convict people of federal corruption   
   charges. A judge will have to decide whether the flight upgrades were   
   illegal, or merely unsavory. Legal experts say it largely comes down to   
   one key question: Were the gifts a gratuity (a token of appreciation with   
   no arrangement ahead of time) or was there a “quid pro quo” (a deal to   
   trade gifts for influence)? In many cases, they say, the line is blurry.   
      
   So how can Gothamist readers know if the gift cards, gold bars, wads of   
   cash or free upgrades on international flights they may be offered are   
   bribes or gratuities under federal law? We used some real-life and   
   hypothetical examples to make this quiz.   
      
   A steakhouse gift card   
   Ms. Munee has a student named Bill in her 11th grade AP English class   
   who’s really been struggling with his assignments. She meets with Bill's   
   parents, who say they're concerned about his grades because he's about to   
   apply to colleges and needs to impress the admissions officers. A week   
   later, Bill gets his first “A” on a paper in Ms. Munee’s class, and the   
   high marks continue for the rest of the school year. After Bill gets an   
   “A” on his report card and is accepted to a prestigious university, his   
   parents give Ms. Munee a $100 gift card to the nicest steakhouse in town.   
      
   If Bill’s parents never offered to give Ms. Munee a gift in advance and   
   the teacher didn’t change the grade in the hopes of receiving one, it   
   would likely be considered a gratuity, said Richard Briffault, a professor   
   at Columbia Law School who teaches a course on public corruption. He said   
   maybe the teacher determined that Bill deserved more credit for his   
   efforts.   
      
   But the calculus might change if, in their meeting with Ms. Munee, Bill’s   
   parents asked the teacher to raise their son’s grade and told her: “We’ll   
   make it worth your while,” said attorney Michael Feldberg, who represented   
   former state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver at his 2018 corruption trial.   
   If that statement influenced Ms. Munee to change the grade, he said, “that   
   would probably make it look more like a bribe.”   
      
   A $13,000 check   
   A small Midwestern city needs new garbage trucks, and Mayor Gold has to   
   pick a company for the contract. He chooses a dealership and authorizes   
   the city to pay the company more than $1 million for five trucks. The   
   truck dealership is elated. Several months later, the owner sends Mayor   
   Gold a check for $13,000. The mayor says this payment is for “consulting   
   services” he provided to the company.   
      
   This scenario is actually based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.   
   James Snyder, the mayor of Portage, Indiana, accepted such a check and was   
   charged with accepting an illegal gratuity. In June, the justices ruled he   
   hadn’t violated federal law.   
      
   Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the federal law isn’t clear. He added that if   
   the above scenario were prohibited, it could make it nearly impossible for   
   mail carriers and public school teachers to know if they can accept gifts   
   like holiday tips or tickets to basketball games without risk of violating   
   federal law. Under that decision, though, the mayor’s $13,000 check is   
   also technically legal.   
      
   “The government’s so-called guidance would leave state and local officials   
   entirely at sea to guess about what gifts they are allowed to accept under   
   federal law, with the threat of up to 10 years in federal prison if they   
   happen to guess wrong,” Kavanaugh wrote.   
      
   But even though the decision was meant to clarify which types of gifts are   
   illegal, some experts have warned that it could lead to even more   
   confusion.   
      
   “It’s a mess. It's complex. The distinctions are hard to follow,” Feldberg   
   said. “Every time a case comes up to the court and the court wrestles with   
   it, let's put it this way: I don't think they're making it more clear.”   
      
   Daniel Weiner, director of the Brennan Center’s Elections & Government   
   Program, said the ruling doesn’t make gratuities “A-OK,” but it does mean   
   that they’re not criminal under federal law.   
      
   “The Snyder case potentially could give rise to a free for all,” he said.   
   “As long as you refrain from having some sort of explicit agreement before   
   you engage in corrupt activity, then potentially, you've insulated   
   yourself from the reach of federal corruption law.”   
      
   A luxury penthouse   
   Councilmember Slots represents a neighborhood where a powerful real estate   
   developer wants to open a casino inside a brand new luxury housing and   
   retail complex. Many longtime residents don’t want a casino in their   
   community and worry the luxury development could raise their rents.   
   Councilmember Slots agrees and vocally opposes the plan.   
      
   But then the developer asks to meet with her, and over dinner he promises   
   this development will make her life “a whole lot better.” The next   
   morning, Councilmember Slots announces her support for the redevelopment   
   plan. She also casts a decisive vote in the City Council to approve the   
   plan. When the luxury condos are completed two years later, the developer   
   offers Councilmember Slots the penthouse at a highly discounted price.   
      
   If the developer asked Councilmember Slots to support the casino plan and   
   offered perks in return, Feldberg said, the official would likely be in   
   danger of a bribery accusation.   
      
   “That sounds like a quid pro quo to me,” he said.   
      
   But Feldberg said that if the developer hadn’t put any pressure on the   
   councilmember, and she changed her mind simply because she learned that   
   many more residents supported the plan than she initially thought, then   
   the penthouse could be considered a gratuity.   
      
   No-show jobs for a politician’s son   
   A state lawmaker with a powerful leadership position is trying to scrounge   
   together an income for his adult son. He decides to ask various companies   
   whose businesses could be drastically affected by state legislation to pay   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)