Didn't you hear? Of course not.
From on high Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has mandated the rules around the conduct in which somebody may try and prosecute for corruption over changed to be much more narrow and restrictive. More specifically the instance of corruption must occur 'officially'...
The New York Times reports:
":...filing a lawsuit, say, or making an administrative determination. Routine political courtesies like arranging meetings or urging underlings to consider a matter, he added, generally do not, even when the people seeking those favors give the public officials gifts or money."
So while the door still remains open for prosecutors to persue corrupt entities and people, the fact that it is now made more difficult by the treasonous actions of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is undeniable. To be prosecuted you must now be committing the more 'traditional' forms of bribery and kickbacks.
But that's not the only factor in keeping corrupt officials from being caught. In a paper written for Harvard titled 'Measuring Illegal and Legal Corruption in American States: Some Results from the Corruption in America Survey' written by Oguzhan Dincer and Michael Johnston provides these observations:
The data report federal public corruption convictions; thus, corruption cases tried by state and local prosecutors are not included in the data. Federal prosecutors have considerable discretion over how much effort to put into investigating public corruption. Hence, the number of convictions depends not only on the level of corruption but also on levels of prosecutorial effort.2 Prosecutors choose which cases to prosecute and which to decline so as to maximize their conviction rate and their visibility.3
The number of federal convictions is related to prosecutorial resources in a state.4
Partisan bias is likely in the prosecution of public officials by federal prosecutors, i.e., the U.S. attorneys. The decision to prosecute is up to the U.S. attorneys who are appointed by the President with the advice and support of the home state partisans. There is anecdotal as well as empirical evidence supporting this hypothesis. The unprecedented midterm dismissal of seven U.S. attorneys in 2007, for example, led to congressional investigations. Some were allegedly dismissed either because they did not pursue corruption investigations against prominent Democrats with sufficient vigor or because they did pursue investigations against prominent Republicans.5 Similar allegations have resurfaced in Virginia in 2014.
While data are reported annually, there is an unknown, and most likely variable, time lag between crimes and convictions.
The data give little to no indication as to the seriousness of a case.
The data cover only those officials who are caught and, of course, convicted.
is manifest when there is a systemic and strategic influence which is legal, or even currently ethical, that undermines the institution’s effectiveness by diverting it from its purpose or weakening its ability to achieve its purpose, including, to the extent relevant to its purpose, weakening either the public’s trust in that institution or the institution’s inherent trustworthiness.9
Surely the folks in Washington wouldn't do anything to abuse their new and unprecedented privacy... right?
Our IP Address: