Seems the OP made it.

But you know it's just politics so anything goes.

not say it's fraud or corrupt..

And the claim that there is no proof.

Nice stretching what I am saying.

This is how all politicians take money in effectively for votes. Its not a new thought.

it would come out to 1% ?

You could actually do the math... But you don't really care.

So...

what she says as opposed to what she does ? She like many others have turned our government in to a Political Society that has no place for the common citizen except to vote and pay for the very thing killing us, GREED .

Their so called regulators are former employees. It's a joke, if it's not implied, there is plenty of empirical evidence.

... You're just talking out of your ass in the hope to garnish some pats on the back from your compadres, and just giddy with the thought that they might think you're being clever.

What I posted is pretty straight forward. Some types of crimes are very hard to prove and bribery is one of them because they separate the taking of money from the vote and do not let themselves be taped making direct deals.

When questioned, all politicians claim that their votes or actions were not because of a quid pro quo and prosecutors have a hard time addressing any such claims because it is very hard to prove.

This is way out there crap.

Either you believe money in politics is bad or you don't. The problem with money in politics is that its almost impossible to prove a direct link between a donation of whatever kind and a vote unless the politician is totally stupid.

I just read again a fervent Hillary Supporter who again claimed that there is no evidence of a connection between all the money that Hillary, her family, and her foundation has made in a few short years and her political positions and acts.

This is what all politicians say and it says nothing. There is almost never "evidence" but we all know that money buys influence and actions in politics. This is not limited to Hillary but she is running for our party's nomination.

Fox never talks about corruption in money. It is the opposite of Fox. I think money in politics is one of the major problems and precisely because there is never "evidence" of the link. You seem to believe something else.

Just explain how you would find evidence of a link between someone giving a politician money and their vote?

... because I can make the same claim about Bernie Sanders, but just like you there is no proof of quid pro quo. For example I have no proof that he took payoffs from the arms manufacturers for his votes and because I have no proof I cannot justify making the charge. For those of you claiming the high road of nobility, justice, honesty, and fairness as pillars of support for your chosen candidate, your post is a direct detour into the opposite of what you say you embrace. And that is without addressing the prostitute comparison.

The one talking out of his ass

Read my reply to him.

wasn't talking about him

... as he is the only one I view as pertinent to the exchange.

Watch out for those "high level escorts"...

... to see who can win the prize for the most atta-boys, pats on the back, and guffaws. Extra points for (what they perceive) being clever.

Imagine you had a corrupt politician. I added the name of the most corrupt politician I know of to the title of this --Tom Delay.

He took a lot of money in for the Republican Party. Developed the K Street lobbying scheme. Now how would you "prove" that he was taking money for votes and what "evidence" could you find. He was never on tape saying "You pay me $200,000, I will vote your way or introduce this bill". He was not convicted of bribery or influence peddling or whatever you would call the crime because there never is evidence of a quid pro quo if the politician is not on tape.

In the current political environment, no politician leaves actual evidence that their vote was influenced. Which is why Hillary's claim is so meaningless. Contributions are almost all attempts to buy or sell some level of influence.

Ok your turn. Exactly what constitutes "evidence" that a politician has been influenced by contributions?

..... and the list of others is long , but, I will somewhat concede if you admit that what you have written in this thread can be applied in the exact same way to Bernie Sanders. I or anyone else has no evidence that he was bought by the arms manufacturers to cast his votes in their favor, and until I do have that evidence, I have no moral right to use a smoke and mirrors ploy to cast doubt in others minds about his integrity.

"Contributions are ALMOST ALL attempts to buy or sell some level of influence."

You said a mouthful.

William Jefferson, Ex-Congressman, Gets 13 Years In Freezer Cash Case
Mar 18, 2010 | Updated May 25, 2011
Associated Press MATTHEW BARAKAT
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A former Louisiana congressman who famously hid $90,000 cash in his freezer was sentenced Friday to 13 years in prison for taking bribes, the longest term ever imposed on a congressman for bribery charges.

Pretty sure that constitutes evidence.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/william-jefferson-ex-cong_n_357667.html

And he did not even do it.

DeLay got several GOP judges to agree that the Texas money laundering statute does apply to checks and only applies to currency. That result was absurd but the good news is that the appellant lawyer who sold that argument is one of the attorneys prosecuting Paxton, the current Texas AG

That is exactly my point. It is very hard to prove bribery. Most of the politicians get in trouble not for the obvious but unprovable quid pro quo but for campaign or money laundering violations. Mishandling money is easier to prove because it leaves a trail.

For actual bribery you have to prove a quid pro quo which is hard to find evidence of because it involves intention and as far as I can tell no one has invented a device to read intentions that's admissible in court.

Of course there are stupid politicians who actually put the quid pro quo in writing or an email. But that would be a pretty stupid politician. Even if there are direct meetings where direct bribery was discussed, the "evidence" of the quid pro quo would be in the air unless being taped and even if you had someone flip it would just be an accusation without substantiating evidence.

I do not claim to be a lawyer. I am one. I am not advocating a change in the law. I did not say I was a lawyer to give legal advice. I did say it because I know what mens rea is and its an element of certain crimes and is very difficult to find evidence for. It was also a claim that because mens rea is hard to prove, there are very few perjury or bribery cases because evidence is within the person's intentions and not posted on a fucking billboard.

If you actually tried to read and not slam what I said, you would find its a pretty simple point which did not include urging a change in the law. I have said over and over that when someone says "There is no evidence that I was influenced by money" it is a meaningless claim. There is rarely any real evidence of intention unless there is a tape. Which is why even though there is plenty of perjury and bribery in the US it is rarely prosecuted.

I am sorry you seem to be having so much problems in reading such a simple point.