Michael Moore offered to pay the fine for any Republican member of the Electoral College who went against their state's election results and refused to vote for Trump. Does this constitute bribery?
Let's see.... treason, extortion, black mail, sedition, conspiracy to defraud, fraud, oh yeah there it is Bribery. Yep there still reading from the same book.
Proving that Liberal don't care about the Constitution or the law.
Hillary, a known felon, won the popular vote.
It demonstrates utter hypocrisy. While complaining about the influencing of elections he attempts to influence the election.
Yes, paying someone to influence their decision is bribery. That's pretty clear.
Trump offered to pay the fine for his supporters that assaulted protesters.
Only if you don't understand what bribery is.
I agree with you... however, if Moore phrased it as an "if...then" offer, would it even matter what the electors claimed as their reasoning? Moore would still be attempting to sway votes with a monetary gift - whether or not he was technically taken up on his offer, that's still bribery.
Because it doesn't fit the definition of bribery. Simple enough.
Bribe (v): persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement.
Is the payment of one's debt not a gift of money or other inducement?
Consider the source ; )
One liberal is an idiot, so all liberals don't care about the law?
Sure. I could think of plenty of examples where conservatives have totally disregarded the law and the Constitution, does that mean that all conservatives don't care about the law as well?
The popular vote, in the last election, was won by a known unindicted felon. You sure you want to defend that?
The only thing I'm trying to defend is that you're generalizing all liberals, saying that no liberal cares about the constitution because of Michael Moore. That is blatantly a false generalization
The Liberals voting for a known felon rests my case.
I'm a liberal, and I did not vote for Hillary Clinton. Again, you are generalizing a very large and diverse group of people.
Also, what if it was a lesser of two evils thing? What if they didn't want to vote for a corrupt orange billionaire for president? Just because they voted for Clinton doesn't mean that they endorse everything she's ever done
Clinton won the popular vote.
What is your point, how does that mean that all liberals disregard the law
There could be personal gain for the elector though. Depending on how you see it, the fine could be interpreted as a debt owed, and the payment of that debt would be a substantial gift. Even though the elector isn't pocketing the money, they are improved financially by having their debt removed.
Paying the fine directly to the government there's no personal gain on the part of the Elector; I don't think it's bribery but it is another example of the "I can't accept the loss..." Elitist, whiney makeup of the party.
I say the Electors have a vested interest in seeing that the transaction between Michael Moore and themselves does NOT have the taint of impropriety. The only thing the Elector has to do, is make the case that it was THEIR decision, REGARDLESS of the fine. If they do that (...and it wouldn't HAVE to be all that compelling!), the 'gift' from Mr. Moore becomes incidental...(IMHO)
I believe so, Carolinaaa. It seems too easy gettin' lost in the minutiae of precisely what constitutes bribery, and whether its a statutory breach of the letter of the law, or the spirit. Either way, it seems to skirt the boundaries of ethics. I also consider the source. How much of this is the sour grapes rant of an entertainer, who's taking broad liberties with his creative license?
Hey, well said man!!
as usual no one paid any attention to the idiot . . .
It's very clearly personal gain. If I pay your mortgage or any other debt off for you, that's a positive contribution to your net worth.
It constitutes encouraging (in some instances) committing a felony/misdemeanor crime, so he should be careful what he says/does.
It's illegal. Paying voters for votes, essentially what he is doing, is illegal, I believe.
Agreed, Liberty. The only way around it that I see is if the electors decided the fine was unjust and therefore invalid, and had no intention of paying the fine whatsoever. (Although I'm not sure I'd agree with that either, because they entered the job under contract with an understanding of their duty.)
I agree. Although, technically he could pay directly to the government instead of the individual, and if the individual never intended to pay the fine, then I could maybe see an argument, albeit a weak one.