Florida AG calls for investigation into $16M Bloomberg donations to help felons vote

[colfax_m]

You really think all bribery cases have written over even verbal agreements?

Bribery cases all have SOME kind of agreement. That’s what makes it bribery, silly.

 

[martybegan]

LOL, in our current metric saying one thing considered an "ist/ic/ism" can result in you being banished, decades of good work and behavior ruined, careers and lives trashed.

Being a bit hysteric, aren't we?

So what is it Joe? Is cancel culture a good thing or not?

Mostly, it's a unicorn. Sorry, man, who has been really "cancelled". Louis CK is back to doing comedy shows, so are most of the other people who have supposedly been cancelled, some for doing awful things.

This has nothing to do with my point about wanting to let regular folks get their lives back once they've done their time for non-violent crimes.

I think you fucked up here, but your usual hypocritical self will find some way to worm out of it.

Um, no, you are brining up two different things, one of which is a figment of your imagination. There is no "cancel Culture". There is "I don't want to patronize your art anymore because you did something awful", but frankly, none of these people ever really go away.

Figures you would try to spin it, and not surprised you failed pathetically.

 

[martybegan]

You really think all bribery cases have written over even verbal agreements?

Bribery cases all have SOME kind of agreement. That’s what makes it bribery, silly.

They can have implied agreement, and this is what you have here.

1. I pay hundreds or thousands of dollars so you can vote
2. I support Jo Biden
3. Figure it out.

 

[colfax_m]

You really think all bribery cases have written over even verbal agreements?

Bribery cases all have SOME kind of agreement. That’s what makes it bribery, silly.

They can have implied agreement, and this is what you have here.

1. I pay hundreds or thousands of dollars so you can vote
2. I support Jo Biden
3. Figure it out.

That is not illegal. There is no such thing as bribery based on an implied agreement.

If it were, Bill Barr would have been convicted of bribery to become AG.

Barr's donations to Senate Republicans spiked before confirmation

In the lead up to his Senate confirmation hearings for attorney general earlier this year, William Barr's giving habits suddenly changed.

qz.com

 

[martybegan]

You really think all bribery cases have written over even verbal agreements?

Bribery cases all have SOME kind of agreement. That’s what makes it bribery, silly.

They can have implied agreement, and this is what you have here.

1. I pay hundreds or thousands of dollars so you can vote
2. I support Jo Biden
3. Figure it out.

That is not illegal. There is no such thing as bribery based on an implied agreement.

If it were, Bill Barr would have been convicted of bribery to become AG.

Barr's donations to Senate Republicans spiked before confirmation

In the lead up to his Senate confirmation hearings for attorney general earlier this year, William Barr's giving habits suddenly changed.

qz.com

Wow, you really are spinning this. So all bribery cases require explicit written agreements saying "I am bribing you" to be considered bribery?

 

[colfax_m]

You really think all bribery cases have written over even verbal agreements?

Bribery cases all have SOME kind of agreement. That’s what makes it bribery, silly.

They can have implied agreement, and this is what you have here.

1. I pay hundreds or thousands of dollars so you can vote
2. I support Jo Biden
3. Figure it out.

That is not illegal. There is no such thing as bribery based on an implied agreement.

If it were, Bill Barr would have been convicted of bribery to become AG.

Barr's donations to Senate Republicans spiked before confirmation

In the lead up to his Senate confirmation hearings for attorney general earlier this year, William Barr's giving habits suddenly changed.

qz.com

Wow, you really are spinning this. So all bribery cases require explicit written agreements saying "I am bribing you" to be considered bribery?

Never said explicit written agreement. I literally said some kind of agreement. Just demonstrates how poorly your pay attention to what I’ve been saying.

Yes, bribery requires an agreement. This is called a quid pro quo.

 

[martybegan]

You really think all bribery cases have written over even verbal agreements?

Bribery cases all have SOME kind of agreement. That’s what makes it bribery, silly.

They can have implied agreement, and this is what you have here.

1. I pay hundreds or thousands of dollars so you can vote
2. I support Jo Biden
3. Figure it out.

That is not illegal. There is no such thing as bribery based on an implied agreement.

If it were, Bill Barr would have been convicted of bribery to become AG.

Barr's donations to Senate Republicans spiked before confirmation

In the lead up to his Senate confirmation hearings for attorney general earlier this year, William Barr's giving habits suddenly changed.

qz.com

Wow, you really are spinning this. So all bribery cases require explicit written agreements saying "I am bribing you" to be considered bribery?

Never said explicit written agreement. I literally said some kind of agreement. Just demonstrates how poorly your pay attention to what I’ve been saying.

Yes, bribery requires an agreement. This is called a quid pro quo.

Implied agreements are agreements, and this seems like an implied agreement.

The Florida law's wording is key. Sorry but Bloomberg IS paying these people to vote for Biden, and you seem to be OK with that.

 

[colfax_m]

You really think all bribery cases have written over even verbal agreements?

Bribery cases all have SOME kind of agreement. That’s what makes it bribery, silly.

They can have implied agreement, and this is what you have here.

1. I pay hundreds or thousands of dollars so you can vote
2. I support Jo Biden
3. Figure it out.

That is not illegal. There is no such thing as bribery based on an implied agreement.

If it were, Bill Barr would have been convicted of bribery to become AG.

Barr's donations to Senate Republicans spiked before confirmation

In the lead up to his Senate confirmation hearings for attorney general earlier this year, William Barr's giving habits suddenly changed.

qz.com

Wow, you really are spinning this. So all bribery cases require explicit written agreements saying "I am bribing you" to be considered bribery?

Never said explicit written agreement. I literally said some kind of agreement. Just demonstrates how poorly your pay attention to what I’ve been saying.

Yes, bribery requires an agreement. This is called a quid pro quo.

Implied agreements are agreements, and this seems like an implied agreement.

The Florida law's wording is key. Sorry but Bloomberg IS paying these people to vote for Biden, and you seem to be OK with that.

Bullshit. There isn’t even an implied agreement.

You haven’t read the Florida law, so not sure why you think this is key. You created a legal framework where it would be illegal to drive someone to the polls and would be bribery for Barr to donate to Republicans ahead of his confirmation.

Wink wink nudge nudge isn’t fact.

 

[martybegan]

You really think all bribery cases have written over even verbal agreements?

Bribery cases all have SOME kind of agreement. That’s what makes it bribery, silly.

They can have implied agreement, and this is what you have here.

1. I pay hundreds or thousands of dollars so you can vote
2. I support Jo Biden
3. Figure it out.

That is not illegal. There is no such thing as bribery based on an implied agreement.

If it were, Bill Barr would have been convicted of bribery to become AG.

Barr's donations to Senate Republicans spiked before confirmation

In the lead up to his Senate confirmation hearings for attorney general earlier this year, William Barr's giving habits suddenly changed.

qz.com

Wow, you really are spinning this. So all bribery cases require explicit written agreements saying "I am bribing you" to be considered bribery?

Never said explicit written agreement. I literally said some kind of agreement. Just demonstrates how poorly your pay attention to what I’ve been saying.

Yes, bribery requires an agreement. This is called a quid pro quo.

Implied agreements are agreements, and this seems like an implied agreement.

The Florida law's wording is key. Sorry but Bloomberg IS paying these people to vote for Biden, and you seem to be OK with that.

Bullshit. There isn’t even an implied agreement.

You haven’t read the Florida law, so not sure why you think this is key. You created a legal framework where it would be illegal to drive someone to the polls and would be bribery for Barr to donate to Republicans ahead of his confirmation.

Wink wink nudge nudge isn’t fact.

Sorry a $15 dollar cab ride isn't paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for someone to get rid of their fines and restitution.

A $15 cab ride for a disabled or non transport availible person is an intrinsic part of the voting process, and limited to the voting process.

Paying off hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines is a gain for the person separate from their voting, they now no longer owe that money. It's a material gain outside the vote.

But you will ignore this too because the ends justify the means for TDS fucktards like you, SJW mewling little babies that cry when they don't get their way, and will ignore laws as they see fit in the name of getting Biden elected and taking revenge on anyone who supported Trump.

 

[colfax_m]

You really think all bribery cases have written over even verbal agreements?

Bribery cases all have SOME kind of agreement. That’s what makes it bribery, silly.

They can have implied agreement, and this is what you have here.

1. I pay hundreds or thousands of dollars so you can vote
2. I support Jo Biden
3. Figure it out.

That is not illegal. There is no such thing as bribery based on an implied agreement.

If it were, Bill Barr would have been convicted of bribery to become AG.

Barr's donations to Senate Republicans spiked before confirmation

In the lead up to his Senate confirmation hearings for attorney general earlier this year, William Barr's giving habits suddenly changed.

qz.com

Wow, you really are spinning this. So all bribery cases require explicit written agreements saying "I am bribing you" to be considered bribery?

Never said explicit written agreement. I literally said some kind of agreement. Just demonstrates how poorly your pay attention to what I’ve been saying.

Yes, bribery requires an agreement. This is called a quid pro quo.

Implied agreements are agreements, and this seems like an implied agreement.

The Florida law's wording is key. Sorry but Bloomberg IS paying these people to vote for Biden, and you seem to be OK with that.

Bullshit. There isn’t even an implied agreement.

You haven’t read the Florida law, so not sure why you think this is key. You created a legal framework where it would be illegal to drive someone to the polls and would be bribery for Barr to donate to Republicans ahead of his confirmation.

Wink wink nudge nudge isn’t fact.

Sorry a $15 dollar cab ride isn't paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for someone to get rid of their fines and restitution.

A $15 cab ride for a disabled or non transport availible person is an intrinsic part of the voting process, and limited to the voting process.

Paying off hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines is a gain for the person separate from their voting, they now no longer owe that money. It's a material gain outside the vote.

But you will ignore this too because the ends justify the means for TDS fucktards like you, SJW mewling little babies that cry when they don't get their way, and will ignore laws as they see fit in the name of getting Biden elected and taking revenge on anyone who supported Trump.

Immaterial. If you pay for someone’s cab ride and you support Trump, that’s an implicit agreement according to you.

 

[martybegan]

You really think all bribery cases have written over even verbal agreements?

Bribery cases all have SOME kind of agreement. That’s what makes it bribery, silly.

They can have implied agreement, and this is what you have here.

1. I pay hundreds or thousands of dollars so you can vote
2. I support Jo Biden
3. Figure it out.

That is not illegal. There is no such thing as bribery based on an implied agreement.

If it were, Bill Barr would have been convicted of bribery to become AG.

Barr's donations to Senate Republicans spiked before confirmation

In the lead up to his Senate confirmation hearings for attorney general earlier this year, William Barr's giving habits suddenly changed.

qz.com

Wow, you really are spinning this. So all bribery cases require explicit written agreements saying "I am bribing you" to be considered bribery?

Never said explicit written agreement. I literally said some kind of agreement. Just demonstrates how poorly your pay attention to what I’ve been saying.

Yes, bribery requires an agreement. This is called a quid pro quo.

Implied agreements are agreements, and this seems like an implied agreement.

The Florida law's wording is key. Sorry but Bloomberg IS paying these people to vote for Biden, and you seem to be OK with that.

Bullshit. There isn’t even an implied agreement.

You haven’t read the Florida law, so not sure why you think this is key. You created a legal framework where it would be illegal to drive someone to the polls and would be bribery for Barr to donate to Republicans ahead of his confirmation.

Wink wink nudge nudge isn’t fact.

Sorry a $15 dollar cab ride isn't paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for someone to get rid of their fines and restitution.

A $15 cab ride for a disabled or non transport availible person is an intrinsic part of the voting process, and limited to the voting process.

Paying off hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines is a gain for the person separate from their voting, they now no longer owe that money. It's a material gain outside the vote.

But you will ignore this too because the ends justify the means for TDS fucktards like you, SJW mewling little babies that cry when they don't get their way, and will ignore laws as they see fit in the name of getting Biden elected and taking revenge on anyone who supported Trump.

Immaterial. If you pay for someone’s cab ride and you support Trump, that’s an implicit agreement according to you.

Again, the question of value and material to voting comes into play. People giving rides to the polls has been done for decades, and is of minimal monetary value and is directly linked to the act of getting to the polls. It doesn't impact the person's life beyond that.

Paying off hundreds or thousands of dollars so a person can vote ALSO has the impact of removing a debt they owe, and a substantial one at that. It's a monetary gain, and is likely in violation of the Florida law.

 

[colfax_m]

You really think all bribery cases have written over even verbal agreements?

Bribery cases all have SOME kind of agreement. That’s what makes it bribery, silly.

They can have implied agreement, and this is what you have here.

1. I pay hundreds or thousands of dollars so you can vote
2. I support Jo Biden
3. Figure it out.

That is not illegal. There is no such thing as bribery based on an implied agreement.

If it were, Bill Barr would have been convicted of bribery to become AG.

Barr's donations to Senate Republicans spiked before confirmation

In the lead up to his Senate confirmation hearings for attorney general earlier this year, William Barr's giving habits suddenly changed.

qz.com

Wow, you really are spinning this. So all bribery cases require explicit written agreements saying "I am bribing you" to be considered bribery?

Never said explicit written agreement. I literally said some kind of agreement. Just demonstrates how poorly your pay attention to what I’ve been saying.

Yes, bribery requires an agreement. This is called a quid pro quo.

Implied agreements are agreements, and this seems like an implied agreement.

The Florida law's wording is key. Sorry but Bloomberg IS paying these people to vote for Biden, and you seem to be OK with that.

Bullshit. There isn’t even an implied agreement.

You haven’t read the Florida law, so not sure why you think this is key. You created a legal framework where it would be illegal to drive someone to the polls and would be bribery for Barr to donate to Republicans ahead of his confirmation.

Wink wink nudge nudge isn’t fact.

Sorry a $15 dollar cab ride isn't paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for someone to get rid of their fines and restitution.

A $15 cab ride for a disabled or non transport availible person is an intrinsic part of the voting process, and limited to the voting process.

Paying off hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines is a gain for the person separate from their voting, they now no longer owe that money. It's a material gain outside the vote.

But you will ignore this too because the ends justify the means for TDS fucktards like you, SJW mewling little babies that cry when they don't get their way, and will ignore laws as they see fit in the name of getting Biden elected and taking revenge on anyone who supported Trump.

Immaterial. If you pay for someone’s cab ride and you support Trump, that’s an implicit agreement according to you.

Again, the question of value and material to voting comes into play. People giving rides to the polls has been done for decades, and is of minimal monetary value and is directly linked to the act of getting to the polls. It doesn't impact the person's life beyond that.

Paying off hundreds or thousands of dollars so a person can vote ALSO has the impact of removing a debt they owe, and a substantial one at that. It's a monetary gain, and is likely in violation of the Florida law.

The size of the monetary value is immaterial. There is no part of the law that says it’s illegal to pay someone to vote unless the amount isn’t much.

There’s no violation of Florida law. Just whining.

 

[martybegan]

You really think all bribery cases have written over even verbal agreements?

Bribery cases all have SOME kind of agreement. That’s what makes it bribery, silly.

They can have implied agreement, and this is what you have here.

1. I pay hundreds or thousands of dollars so you can vote
2. I support Jo Biden
3. Figure it out.

That is not illegal. There is no such thing as bribery based on an implied agreement.

If it were, Bill Barr would have been convicted of bribery to become AG.

Barr's donations to Senate Republicans spiked before confirmation

In the lead up to his Senate confirmation hearings for attorney general earlier this year, William Barr's giving habits suddenly changed.

qz.com

Wow, you really are spinning this. So all bribery cases require explicit written agreements saying "I am bribing you" to be considered bribery?

Never said explicit written agreement. I literally said some kind of agreement. Just demonstrates how poorly your pay attention to what I’ve been saying.

Yes, bribery requires an agreement. This is called a quid pro quo.

Implied agreements are agreements, and this seems like an implied agreement.

The Florida law's wording is key. Sorry but Bloomberg IS paying these people to vote for Biden, and you seem to be OK with that.

Bullshit. There isn’t even an implied agreement.

You haven’t read the Florida law, so not sure why you think this is key. You created a legal framework where it would be illegal to drive someone to the polls and would be bribery for Barr to donate to Republicans ahead of his confirmation.

Wink wink nudge nudge isn’t fact.

Sorry a $15 dollar cab ride isn't paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for someone to get rid of their fines and restitution.

A $15 cab ride for a disabled or non transport availible person is an intrinsic part of the voting process, and limited to the voting process.

Paying off hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines is a gain for the person separate from their voting, they now no longer owe that money. It's a material gain outside the vote.

But you will ignore this too because the ends justify the means for TDS fucktards like you, SJW mewling little babies that cry when they don't get their way, and will ignore laws as they see fit in the name of getting Biden elected and taking revenge on anyone who supported Trump.

Immaterial. If you pay for someone’s cab ride and you support Trump, that’s an implicit agreement according to you.

Again, the question of value and material to voting comes into play. People giving rides to the polls has been done for decades, and is of minimal monetary value and is directly linked to the act of getting to the polls. It doesn't impact the person's life beyond that.

Paying off hundreds or thousands of dollars so a person can vote ALSO has the impact of removing a debt they owe, and a substantial one at that. It's a monetary gain, and is likely in violation of the Florida law.

The size of the monetary value is immaterial. There is no part of the law that says it’s illegal to pay someone to vote unless the amount isn’t much.

There’s no violation of Florida law. Just whining.

The size of monetary value is always material, you just choose to ignore it.

The exact wording of the law in question, notice the wording "directly or indirectly"

No person shall directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote or to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote. Any person who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. However, this subsection shall not apply to the serving of food to be consumed at a political rally or meeting or to any item of nominal value which is used as a political advertisement, including a campaign message designed to be worn by a person.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

 

[colfax_m]

You really think all bribery cases have written over even verbal agreements?

Bribery cases all have SOME kind of agreement. That’s what makes it bribery, silly.

They can have implied agreement, and this is what you have here.

1. I pay hundreds or thousands of dollars so you can vote
2. I support Jo Biden
3. Figure it out.

That is not illegal. There is no such thing as bribery based on an implied agreement.

If it were, Bill Barr would have been convicted of bribery to become AG.

Barr's donations to Senate Republicans spiked before confirmation

In the lead up to his Senate confirmation hearings for attorney general earlier this year, William Barr's giving habits suddenly changed.

qz.com

Wow, you really are spinning this. So all bribery cases require explicit written agreements saying "I am bribing you" to be considered bribery?

Never said explicit written agreement. I literally said some kind of agreement. Just demonstrates how poorly your pay attention to what I’ve been saying.

Yes, bribery requires an agreement. This is called a quid pro quo.

Implied agreements are agreements, and this seems like an implied agreement.

The Florida law's wording is key. Sorry but Bloomberg IS paying these people to vote for Biden, and you seem to be OK with that.

Bullshit. There isn’t even an implied agreement.

You haven’t read the Florida law, so not sure why you think this is key. You created a legal framework where it would be illegal to drive someone to the polls and would be bribery for Barr to donate to Republicans ahead of his confirmation.

Wink wink nudge nudge isn’t fact.

Sorry a $15 dollar cab ride isn't paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for someone to get rid of their fines and restitution.

A $15 cab ride for a disabled or non transport availible person is an intrinsic part of the voting process, and limited to the voting process.

Paying off hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines is a gain for the person separate from their voting, they now no longer owe that money. It's a material gain outside the vote.

But you will ignore this too because the ends justify the means for TDS fucktards like you, SJW mewling little babies that cry when they don't get their way, and will ignore laws as they see fit in the name of getting Biden elected and taking revenge on anyone who supported Trump.

Immaterial. If you pay for someone’s cab ride and you support Trump, that’s an implicit agreement according to you.

Again, the question of value and material to voting comes into play. People giving rides to the polls has been done for decades, and is of minimal monetary value and is directly linked to the act of getting to the polls. It doesn't impact the person's life beyond that.

Paying off hundreds or thousands of dollars so a person can vote ALSO has the impact of removing a debt they owe, and a substantial one at that. It's a monetary gain, and is likely in violation of the Florida law.

The size of the monetary value is immaterial. There is no part of the law that says it’s illegal to pay someone to vote unless the amount isn’t much.

There’s no violation of Florida law. Just whining.

The size of monetary value is always material, you just choose to ignore it.

The exact wording of the law in question, notice the wording "directly or indirectly"

No person shall directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote or to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote. Any person who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. However, this subsection shall not apply to the serving of food to be consumed at a political rally or meeting or to any item of nominal value which is used as a political advertisement, including a campaign message designed to be worn by a person.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Notice how it says “anything or value” and yet you are telling me that the value does matter?

Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

 

[martybegan]

You really think all bribery cases have written over even verbal agreements?

Bribery cases all have SOME kind of agreement. That’s what makes it bribery, silly.

They can have implied agreement, and this is what you have here.

1. I pay hundreds or thousands of dollars so you can vote
2. I support Jo Biden
3. Figure it out.

That is not illegal. There is no such thing as bribery based on an implied agreement.

If it were, Bill Barr would have been convicted of bribery to become AG.

Barr's donations to Senate Republicans spiked before confirmation

In the lead up to his Senate confirmation hearings for attorney general earlier this year, William Barr's giving habits suddenly changed.

qz.com

Wow, you really are spinning this. So all bribery cases require explicit written agreements saying "I am bribing you" to be considered bribery?

Never said explicit written agreement. I literally said some kind of agreement. Just demonstrates how poorly your pay attention to what I’ve been saying.

Yes, bribery requires an agreement. This is called a quid pro quo.

Implied agreements are agreements, and this seems like an implied agreement.

The Florida law's wording is key. Sorry but Bloomberg IS paying these people to vote for Biden, and you seem to be OK with that.

Bullshit. There isn’t even an implied agreement.

You haven’t read the Florida law, so not sure why you think this is key. You created a legal framework where it would be illegal to drive someone to the polls and would be bribery for Barr to donate to Republicans ahead of his confirmation.

Wink wink nudge nudge isn’t fact.

Sorry a $15 dollar cab ride isn't paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for someone to get rid of their fines and restitution.

A $15 cab ride for a disabled or non transport availible person is an intrinsic part of the voting process, and limited to the voting process.

Paying off hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines is a gain for the person separate from their voting, they now no longer owe that money. It's a material gain outside the vote.

But you will ignore this too because the ends justify the means for TDS fucktards like you, SJW mewling little babies that cry when they don't get their way, and will ignore laws as they see fit in the name of getting Biden elected and taking revenge on anyone who supported Trump.

Immaterial. If you pay for someone’s cab ride and you support Trump, that’s an implicit agreement according to you.

Again, the question of value and material to voting comes into play. People giving rides to the polls has been done for decades, and is of minimal monetary value and is directly linked to the act of getting to the polls. It doesn't impact the person's life beyond that.

Paying off hundreds or thousands of dollars so a person can vote ALSO has the impact of removing a debt they owe, and a substantial one at that. It's a monetary gain, and is likely in violation of the Florida law.

The size of the monetary value is immaterial. There is no part of the law that says it’s illegal to pay someone to vote unless the amount isn’t much.

There’s no violation of Florida law. Just whining.

The size of monetary value is always material, you just choose to ignore it.

The exact wording of the law in question, notice the wording "directly or indirectly"

No person shall directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote or to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote. Any person who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. However, this subsection shall not apply to the serving of food to be consumed at a political rally or meeting or to any item of nominal value which is used as a political advertisement, including a campaign message designed to be worn by a person.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Notice how it says “anything or value” and yet you are telling me that the value does matter?

Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

The next part gives examples of items that are excluded, and show that minimal value items can be excluded.

They use the term "anything of value" to make sure barter isn't used as a dodge to avoid the provisions.

 

[colfax_m]

You really think all bribery cases have written over even verbal agreements?

Bribery cases all have SOME kind of agreement. That’s what makes it bribery, silly.

They can have implied agreement, and this is what you have here.

1. I pay hundreds or thousands of dollars so you can vote
2. I support Jo Biden
3. Figure it out.

That is not illegal. There is no such thing as bribery based on an implied agreement.

If it were, Bill Barr would have been convicted of bribery to become AG.

Barr's donations to Senate Republicans spiked before confirmation

In the lead up to his Senate confirmation hearings for attorney general earlier this year, William Barr's giving habits suddenly changed.

qz.com

Wow, you really are spinning this. So all bribery cases require explicit written agreements saying "I am bribing you" to be considered bribery?

Never said explicit written agreement. I literally said some kind of agreement. Just demonstrates how poorly your pay attention to what I’ve been saying.

Yes, bribery requires an agreement. This is called a quid pro quo.

Implied agreements are agreements, and this seems like an implied agreement.

The Florida law's wording is key. Sorry but Bloomberg IS paying these people to vote for Biden, and you seem to be OK with that.

Bullshit. There isn’t even an implied agreement.

You haven’t read the Florida law, so not sure why you think this is key. You created a legal framework where it would be illegal to drive someone to the polls and would be bribery for Barr to donate to Republicans ahead of his confirmation.

Wink wink nudge nudge isn’t fact.

Sorry a $15 dollar cab ride isn't paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for someone to get rid of their fines and restitution.

A $15 cab ride for a disabled or non transport availible person is an intrinsic part of the voting process, and limited to the voting process.

Paying off hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines is a gain for the person separate from their voting, they now no longer owe that money. It's a material gain outside the vote.

But you will ignore this too because the ends justify the means for TDS fucktards like you, SJW mewling little babies that cry when they don't get their way, and will ignore laws as they see fit in the name of getting Biden elected and taking revenge on anyone who supported Trump.

Immaterial. If you pay for someone’s cab ride and you support Trump, that’s an implicit agreement according to you.

Again, the question of value and material to voting comes into play. People giving rides to the polls has been done for decades, and is of minimal monetary value and is directly linked to the act of getting to the polls. It doesn't impact the person's life beyond that.

Paying off hundreds or thousands of dollars so a person can vote ALSO has the impact of removing a debt they owe, and a substantial one at that. It's a monetary gain, and is likely in violation of the Florida law.

The size of the monetary value is immaterial. There is no part of the law that says it’s illegal to pay someone to vote unless the amount isn’t much.

There’s no violation of Florida law. Just whining.

The size of monetary value is always material, you just choose to ignore it.

The exact wording of the law in question, notice the wording "directly or indirectly"

No person shall directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote or to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote. Any person who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. However, this subsection shall not apply to the serving of food to be consumed at a political rally or meeting or to any item of nominal value which is used as a political advertisement, including a campaign message designed to be worn by a person.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Notice how it says “anything or value” and yet you are telling me that the value does matter?

Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

The next part gives examples of items that are excluded, and show that minimal value items can be excluded.

They use the term "anything of value" to make sure barter isn't used as a dodge to avoid the provisions.

And those exclusions don’t include a car ride to a polling place, do they?

 

[martybegan]

You really think all bribery cases have written over even verbal agreements?

Bribery cases all have SOME kind of agreement. That’s what makes it bribery, silly.

They can have implied agreement, and this is what you have here.

1. I pay hundreds or thousands of dollars so you can vote
2. I support Jo Biden
3. Figure it out.

That is not illegal. There is no such thing as bribery based on an implied agreement.

If it were, Bill Barr would have been convicted of bribery to become AG.

Barr's donations to Senate Republicans spiked before confirmation

In the lead up to his Senate confirmation hearings for attorney general earlier this year, William Barr's giving habits suddenly changed.

qz.com

Wow, you really are spinning this. So all bribery cases require explicit written agreements saying "I am bribing you" to be considered bribery?

Never said explicit written agreement. I literally said some kind of agreement. Just demonstrates how poorly your pay attention to what I’ve been saying.

Yes, bribery requires an agreement. This is called a quid pro quo.

Implied agreements are agreements, and this seems like an implied agreement.

The Florida law's wording is key. Sorry but Bloomberg IS paying these people to vote for Biden, and you seem to be OK with that.

Bullshit. There isn’t even an implied agreement.

You haven’t read the Florida law, so not sure why you think this is key. You created a legal framework where it would be illegal to drive someone to the polls and would be bribery for Barr to donate to Republicans ahead of his confirmation.

Wink wink nudge nudge isn’t fact.

Sorry a $15 dollar cab ride isn't paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for someone to get rid of their fines and restitution.

A $15 cab ride for a disabled or non transport availible person is an intrinsic part of the voting process, and limited to the voting process.

Paying off hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines is a gain for the person separate from their voting, they now no longer owe that money. It's a material gain outside the vote.

But you will ignore this too because the ends justify the means for TDS fucktards like you, SJW mewling little babies that cry when they don't get their way, and will ignore laws as they see fit in the name of getting Biden elected and taking revenge on anyone who supported Trump.

Immaterial. If you pay for someone’s cab ride and you support Trump, that’s an implicit agreement according to you.

Again, the question of value and material to voting comes into play. People giving rides to the polls has been done for decades, and is of minimal monetary value and is directly linked to the act of getting to the polls. It doesn't impact the person's life beyond that.

Paying off hundreds or thousands of dollars so a person can vote ALSO has the impact of removing a debt they owe, and a substantial one at that. It's a monetary gain, and is likely in violation of the Florida law.

The size of the monetary value is immaterial. There is no part of the law that says it’s illegal to pay someone to vote unless the amount isn’t much.

There’s no violation of Florida law. Just whining.

The size of monetary value is always material, you just choose to ignore it.

The exact wording of the law in question, notice the wording "directly or indirectly"

No person shall directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote or to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote. Any person who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. However, this subsection shall not apply to the serving of food to be consumed at a political rally or meeting or to any item of nominal value which is used as a political advertisement, including a campaign message designed to be worn by a person.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Notice how it says “anything or value” and yet you are telling me that the value does matter?

Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

The next part gives examples of items that are excluded, and show that minimal value items can be excluded.

They use the term "anything of value" to make sure barter isn't used as a dodge to avoid the provisions.

And those exclusions don’t include a car ride to a polling place, do they?

So you want them prosecuted as well? Fine. But can you now admit Bloomberg is breaking the law?

 

[colfax_m]

You really think all bribery cases have written over even verbal agreements?

Bribery cases all have SOME kind of agreement. That’s what makes it bribery, silly.

They can have implied agreement, and this is what you have here.

1. I pay hundreds or thousands of dollars so you can vote
2. I support Jo Biden
3. Figure it out.

That is not illegal. There is no such thing as bribery based on an implied agreement.

If it were, Bill Barr would have been convicted of bribery to become AG.

Barr's donations to Senate Republicans spiked before confirmation

In the lead up to his Senate confirmation hearings for attorney general earlier this year, William Barr's giving habits suddenly changed.

qz.com

Wow, you really are spinning this. So all bribery cases require explicit written agreements saying "I am bribing you" to be considered bribery?

Never said explicit written agreement. I literally said some kind of agreement. Just demonstrates how poorly your pay attention to what I’ve been saying.

Yes, bribery requires an agreement. This is called a quid pro quo.

Implied agreements are agreements, and this seems like an implied agreement.

The Florida law's wording is key. Sorry but Bloomberg IS paying these people to vote for Biden, and you seem to be OK with that.

Bullshit. There isn’t even an implied agreement.

You haven’t read the Florida law, so not sure why you think this is key. You created a legal framework where it would be illegal to drive someone to the polls and would be bribery for Barr to donate to Republicans ahead of his confirmation.

Wink wink nudge nudge isn’t fact.

Sorry a $15 dollar cab ride isn't paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for someone to get rid of their fines and restitution.

A $15 cab ride for a disabled or non transport availible person is an intrinsic part of the voting process, and limited to the voting process.

Paying off hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines is a gain for the person separate from their voting, they now no longer owe that money. It's a material gain outside the vote.

But you will ignore this too because the ends justify the means for TDS fucktards like you, SJW mewling little babies that cry when they don't get their way, and will ignore laws as they see fit in the name of getting Biden elected and taking revenge on anyone who supported Trump.

Immaterial. If you pay for someone’s cab ride and you support Trump, that’s an implicit agreement according to you.

Again, the question of value and material to voting comes into play. People giving rides to the polls has been done for decades, and is of minimal monetary value and is directly linked to the act of getting to the polls. It doesn't impact the person's life beyond that.

Paying off hundreds or thousands of dollars so a person can vote ALSO has the impact of removing a debt they owe, and a substantial one at that. It's a monetary gain, and is likely in violation of the Florida law.

The size of the monetary value is immaterial. There is no part of the law that says it’s illegal to pay someone to vote unless the amount isn’t much.

There’s no violation of Florida law. Just whining.

The size of monetary value is always material, you just choose to ignore it.

The exact wording of the law in question, notice the wording "directly or indirectly"

No person shall directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote or to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote. Any person who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. However, this subsection shall not apply to the serving of food to be consumed at a political rally or meeting or to any item of nominal value which is used as a political advertisement, including a campaign message designed to be worn by a person.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Notice how it says “anything or value” and yet you are telling me that the value does matter?

Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

The next part gives examples of items that are excluded, and show that minimal value items can be excluded.

They use the term "anything of value" to make sure barter isn't used as a dodge to avoid the provisions.

And those exclusions don’t include a car ride to a polling place, do they?

So you want them prosecuted as well? Fine. But can you now admit Bloomberg is breaking the law?

I guess you missed the point. The point is that neither is against the law.

To buy a vote means you have an agreement. I will pay you x and you will vote for y. There is no implicit agreement here. There is nothing. If you took this to court, it would be dismissed because there’s no evidence of wrongdoing without any kind of agreement.

 

[martybegan]

You really think all bribery cases have written over even verbal agreements?

Bribery cases all have SOME kind of agreement. That’s what makes it bribery, silly.

They can have implied agreement, and this is what you have here.

1. I pay hundreds or thousands of dollars so you can vote
2. I support Jo Biden
3. Figure it out.

That is not illegal. There is no such thing as bribery based on an implied agreement.

If it were, Bill Barr would have been convicted of bribery to become AG.

Barr's donations to Senate Republicans spiked before confirmation

In the lead up to his Senate confirmation hearings for attorney general earlier this year, William Barr's giving habits suddenly changed.

qz.com

Wow, you really are spinning this. So all bribery cases require explicit written agreements saying "I am bribing you" to be considered bribery?

Never said explicit written agreement. I literally said some kind of agreement. Just demonstrates how poorly your pay attention to what I’ve been saying.

Yes, bribery requires an agreement. This is called a quid pro quo.

Implied agreements are agreements, and this seems like an implied agreement.

The Florida law's wording is key. Sorry but Bloomberg IS paying these people to vote for Biden, and you seem to be OK with that.

Bullshit. There isn’t even an implied agreement.

You haven’t read the Florida law, so not sure why you think this is key. You created a legal framework where it would be illegal to drive someone to the polls and would be bribery for Barr to donate to Republicans ahead of his confirmation.

Wink wink nudge nudge isn’t fact.

Sorry a $15 dollar cab ride isn't paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for someone to get rid of their fines and restitution.

A $15 cab ride for a disabled or non transport availible person is an intrinsic part of the voting process, and limited to the voting process.

Paying off hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines is a gain for the person separate from their voting, they now no longer owe that money. It's a material gain outside the vote.

But you will ignore this too because the ends justify the means for TDS fucktards like you, SJW mewling little babies that cry when they don't get their way, and will ignore laws as they see fit in the name of getting Biden elected and taking revenge on anyone who supported Trump.

Immaterial. If you pay for someone’s cab ride and you support Trump, that’s an implicit agreement according to you.

Again, the question of value and material to voting comes into play. People giving rides to the polls has been done for decades, and is of minimal monetary value and is directly linked to the act of getting to the polls. It doesn't impact the person's life beyond that.

Paying off hundreds or thousands of dollars so a person can vote ALSO has the impact of removing a debt they owe, and a substantial one at that. It's a monetary gain, and is likely in violation of the Florida law.

The size of the monetary value is immaterial. There is no part of the law that says it’s illegal to pay someone to vote unless the amount isn’t much.

There’s no violation of Florida law. Just whining.

The size of monetary value is always material, you just choose to ignore it.

The exact wording of the law in question, notice the wording "directly or indirectly"

No person shall directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote or to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote. Any person who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. However, this subsection shall not apply to the serving of food to be consumed at a political rally or meeting or to any item of nominal value which is used as a political advertisement, including a campaign message designed to be worn by a person.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Notice how it says “anything or value” and yet you are telling me that the value does matter?

Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

The next part gives examples of items that are excluded, and show that minimal value items can be excluded.

They use the term "anything of value" to make sure barter isn't used as a dodge to avoid the provisions.

And those exclusions don’t include a car ride to a polling place, do they?

So you want them prosecuted as well? Fine. But can you now admit Bloomberg is breaking the law?

I guess you missed the point. The point is that neither is against the law.

To buy a vote means you have an agreement. I will pay you x and you will vote for y. There is no implicit agreement here. There is nothing. If you took this to court, it would be dismissed because there’s no evidence of wrongdoing without any kind of agreement.

You ignore the wording of the law. the word corruptly influence is in there. Again,

1. I pay for your fines
2. I vehemently support one Candidate.
3. Figure it out.

There is nothing in the law about requiring an agreement.

That you continue to ignore this just shows how much of a fucking SJW soi boi hack.

Go suck Biden's cock while giving bloomberg a reach around.

 

[colfax_m]

There is nothing in the law about requiring an agreement.

How can one buy a vote without an agreement?

You can’t.

This is just desperation on your part.