#Political Scandals

[omegaphilosophia]

Unmasking the Actions of Corrupt Politicians: A Closer Look at Political Malpractice

Corrupt politicians engage in a wide range of unethical and illegal activities to maintain and expand their power, often at the expense of the public interest. Some common actions and behaviors associated with corrupt politicians include:

Bribery: Accepting money, gifts, or favors in exchange for political favors, such as favorable legislation or government contracts.

Embezzlement: Misappropriating public funds for personal use or diverting money intended for public programs.

Nepotism: Appointing or promoting family members and close associates to government positions, often without regard for their qualifications.

Cronyism: Favoring friends and allies in political appointments, regardless of their competence or suitability for the role.

Kickbacks: Receiving a portion of the funds from government contracts awarded to certain businesses or individuals.

Extortion: Using threats or coercion to obtain money or support for personal or political gain.

Money Laundering: Funneling ill-gotten gains through legitimate financial channels to conceal their origin.

Corrupt Campaign Financing: Accepting illegal campaign contributions or using campaign funds for personal expenses.

Obstruction of Justice: Interfering with investigations, destroying evidence, or intimidating witnesses to avoid accountability.

Vote Rigging: Manipulating election results through voter suppression, ballot stuffing, or other fraudulent means.

Abuse of Power: Using one's political position to harass, intimidate, or retaliate against perceived enemies or whistleblowers.

Influence Peddling: Selling access to government officials or decision-makers to private interests seeking favorable outcomes.

Gerrymandering: Manipulating electoral district boundaries to favor one's political party and ensure re-election.

Lobbying Malpractice: Engaging in unethical lobbying practices, such as misrepresenting facts or exerting undue influence on legislators.

Conflict of Interest: Failing to disclose or address personal financial interests that may compromise one's ability to make impartial decisions.

Corrupt politicians undermine the principles of democracy, erode public trust in government, and divert resources away from essential public services. It's crucial to combat corruption through transparency, accountability, and legal mechanisms to uphold the integrity of political systems.

[deadpresidents]

Are there any studies on how this country might've changed if Ford had not pardoned Nixon? Is it likely that the DOJ would've indicated Nixon and is it likely that Nixon would've been impeached and convicted?

Nixon 100% would have been impeached and convicted and removed from office. The House Judiciary Committee had already voted to impeach Nixon about a week-and-a-half before he resigned, so the next step would have been impeachment by the full House of Representatives. That would have triggered the trial in the Senate.

The reason Nixon resigned was because Senate Republican leaders like Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott went to the White House and told him that he was finished and that even they would be voting to convict him once he was impeached.

Whether or not Nixon would have been indicted if Ford had not pardoned him is hard to know, but at the end of the chapter about President Ford's pardon of Nixon in Richard Norton Smith's recent book, An Ordinary Man: The Surprising Life and Historic Presidency of Gerald R. Ford (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO), Smith reveals:

Among Ford's privately stated reasons for pardoning Nixon was his desire to relieve Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski of responsibility for deciding the former President's legal fate. The irony of this position was revealed only after he left office. In June 1982, ABC News marked ten years since the Watergate break-in by assembling seven of the twenty-three grand jurors originally summoned to investigate the Nixon White House. As they told it, prosecutors answering to Jaworski had drawn up a four-count indictment charging Nixon with "bribery, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and obstruction of a criminal investigation." All it required for implementation was a formal jury vote and two signatures -- those of the jury foreman and the special prosecutor. The grand jurors were unanimously prepared to endorse such a course. Jaworski was not. Arguing that no precedent existed for indicting a sitting President, he had persuaded the grand jury to instead forward its evidence to the House Judiciary Committee for possible impeachment proceedings. With Nixon's August 1974 resignation, the issue of Presidential guilt resurfaced. Jaworski's deputy Philip Lacovara argued for an indictment of the now-former President, a view widely held among the prosecutorial staff and seconded by members of the grand jury. Jaworski thought he had suffered enough. In reality, Jaworski had never intended to put Nixon on trial if he could possibly avoid it. Ford's pardon saved him from publicly disclosing this reluctance, something he confided before his death in October 1982 to [former Defense Secretary] Mel Laird and Houston Congressman William Archer, both instrumental in his original appointment.

[fly-chicken]

A Pragmatic and surprisingly comforting perspective about the Trump 2nd Presidency from the ACLU

***Apologies if this is how you found out the 2024 election results***

Blacked out part is my name.

I’m not going to let this make me give up. It’s disheartening, and today I will wallow, probably tomorrow too

AND

I will continue to do my part in my community to spread the activism and promote change for the world I want to live in. I want to change the world AND help with the dishes.

And I won’t let an orange pit stain be what stops me from trying to be better.

A link to donate to the ACLU if able and inclined. I know I am

[latestnews-now]

Matt Gaetz has withdrawn as Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general, ending a controversial nomination process that rocked Washington. Discover the details behind his decision, the Senate’s reaction, and what it means for Trump’s administration. Don’t miss out – subscribe for more breaking news!

[pwrn51]

Political Scams in Previous Government Officals #2

  In the latest episode of “Lest We Forget Historical,” host Lillian Cauldwell carries on with the series on political scandals involving past presidents, congressional and senate members, and various organizations that acted above the law. Although these incidents are from past administrations, scams, misinformation, and fake news still shake our current political framework. They will persist…

[i-news-you]

"🚨 Explosive Scandal Unveiled! 🚨

Join us in our latest video as we unravel the gripping political drama surrounding New York Republican Congressman George Santos.

🔍 Dive deep into the allegations and charges against Santos. 🔥 Witness the political ramifications and heated debates. 💬 Hear from Santos himself as he responds to the allegations. 🔮 Speculate on what's next in this unfolding controversy.

This is one video you can't afford to miss if you're a political enthusiast! Watch now for all the details and be part of the conversation.

[andythecorsair]

My favourite artist has been cancelled! What do I do??

I think this is the wrong way to address the issue. Rather than cancellation, we need individually to decide how the scandal, statement, or other controversy colours the work we love, and in what shades. For some people, the metatextual knowledge of the artist will be overwhelming, and they won't be able to continue to consume the work. For others, it will just be another thread, however distasteful, on top of the themes and interpretations that were already present in the artist's art. For others still, it will have no effect at all, as they don't inject that commentary into the text at all. All three are equally valid.

There's a fourth group, of course, which is particularly social media prone, who enjoy feeling morally righteous by ceasing to consume the work of people who've been cancelled. I know because I spent a lot of time thinking that way. If you're one of those, I'm sure you'll be tempted to reply, but I'm not talking to you. So we'll leave door number 4 for now.

What I would suggest is that you go back and consume the art that you love and see how much you read the current scandal into it. That will tell you how much you're still able to enjoy the work for what it was to you a month ago. It might be that falling into those old, comforting flows of language or colour of music allows you to put the real world aside as you fall into it. It might well be that it's time to find some other artist who speaks to you in a similar way. Even if you return to that artist's work some day in the future.

Whatever you choose to do, I'd say take a break from the discourse here and on other social media and make your mind up for yourself. Ultimately art is a conversation between the artist and the consumer. Everything else is just noise.

I've put in the tags the artist I was thinking of when I wrote this, but I really do think it applies to any artist; including ones that I personally find loathsome, such as J. K. Rowling or Morrissey. Your relationship with art is your own, and don't let anyone else shout you down.

[sbrown82]

NOT ZADDY TONY GOLDWYN AT THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION?! 👀🥰

[georgefairbrother]

A couple of additional points in context (thanks to @robbielewis for the nudge):

The alleged hitman, Newton, was apparently recruited at a Blackpool club, having drunkenly bragged about being a hitman, "If you want someone bumped off, I'm your man!" He later testified that, "It's a different world after 16 pints."

Andrew 'Chicken Brain' Newton: Image - The Independent

According to The Independent:

"... Newton hit upon the plan of luring Scott to a Kensington hotel with the promise of a modelling job. At this stage, the Old Bailey heard, the intended murder weapon was not an antique pistol. It was, Newton revealed at the trial, a chisel, hidden in a bunch of flowers.

Scott did not show up at the hotel.

And so, the prosecution alleged, Newton was forced to try plan B: luring Scott to a layby on Exmoor and shooting him with the unreliable antique pistol.

When the gun jammed, the prosecution claimed, Newton was left with no option but to swear, get back in his car and drive off, leaving the dog dead and Scott alive.

(Newton thought the friendly Great Dane was attacking him, and described the experience as 'like being attacked by a man-eating donkey'. )

In March 1976 Newton was found guilty of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life, but throughout the four-day Exeter Crown Court trial, he did nothing to incriminate Thorpe, insisting instead that he, not the Liberal MP, had been the one worried about possible claims by Scott.

But in 1977, after being released from a two-year jail sentence, Newton changed his story and went to the London Evening News claiming he had received a £5,000 down payment on a 'contract to murder'..."

During Jeremy Thorpe's trial, Newton, having been granted immunity, admitted that he was known as 'chicken brain', under cross-examination he was asked if he knew what a 'buffoon' was, and the judge made it clear that he thought Newton was a perjurer and a publicity seeking idiot.

This week in 1979, (June 21st), a court verdict brought at least some closure to one of the most dramatic political scandals of 1970s Britain.

The BBC reported;

“…Former Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe has walked out of the Old Bailey a free man, after a jury cleared him of the attempted murder of Norman Scott. Mr Thorpe, who resigned as leader in 1976 amid allegations that he had had a homosexual affair with Mr Scott, hailed his acquittal as 'a complete vindication'…”

It took the jury 15 hours of deliberation spread over three days to reach its verdict, with Thorpe and three co-defendants all cleared of the charges.

Jeremy Thorpe (1929-2014) had been leader of the Liberal Party since 1967, and was at his most powerful during the double election year of 1974 when he declined Edward Heath's offer to form a coalition which would have kept the Tories in power. Thorpe had held the constituency of North Devon since 1959, but was voted out at the 1979 general election, on the eve of his highly publicised trial.

It had been alleged that Thorpe had been in a relationship with Norman Scott (real name Norman Josiffe) in the 1960s, at which time homosexuality was illegal. Scott had become talkative and troublesome during the 1970s, including revealing the relationship in open court during an unrelated legal action, and even though by then same-sex relationships were legal, publicity of this nature, in the context of the time, would have ended a political career. It was alleged that Jeremy Thorpe ordered a ‘hit’ on Norman Scott, through an intermediary, to be carried out by Andrew Newton. Scott survived by virtue of the fact that Newton’s gun had jammed, although he had managed to kill Scott’s dog, for which he was convicted.

Despite the acquittal, Thorpe’s reputation and career did not recover, and attempts to serve in other facets of public life were frustrated. He died after a long battle with Parkinson's Disease in 2014.

[dontmean2bepoliticalbut]

[gleafer]

Time really is a circle…

And this sh*t is making me dizzy!

[stillnaomi]

...the politics of race and immigration became intertwined with one another to the extent that during the period 1950-1981, every single piece of immigration or citizenship legislation was designed at least in part to reduce the number of people with black or brown skin who were permitted to live and work in the UK.

The Historical Roots of the Windrush Scandal: independent research report

[deadpresidents]

Do you think Senator Bob Menéndez should resign?

Absolutely.

And he can't use the excuse that was brought up the first time he was indicted for corruption (in 2015), when it was suggested that if he resigned he would be giving up a Senate seat to the other party because the Governor of New Jersey at the time was a Republican. The current Governor is a Democrat and it wouldn't jeopardize the razor-thin Democratic majority in the Senate.

Plus, Menendez is arguably the most corrupt member of Congress from either party, which is quite an achievement in 2023. He shouldn't have survived the 2015 indictment for corruption which resulted in a mistrial. He is like a caricature of a crooked fat cat politician with his wads of cash stuffed in clothing that literally has his name branded on it. He's cartoonishly corrupt!

[prolibytherium]

Beautiful friendship

[generalelectionmusings]

[tweetingukpolitics]