When I learned on Friday that Senator Bob Corker had flipped on the Republican Tax Scam, I wondered why. He had said that he would not support a tax bill that added a penny to the debt. $1 trillion plus is a lot of pennies. That is in character for him, because he has been a deficit hawk throughout his career. Trump could not threaten him, because he retires in January. It just made no sense to me at all… until now.
Remember those five minutes when Republican Senator Bob Corker tried to position himself as the principled conservative opposition to Donald Trump? That ended this week, when the GOP bribed Corker into voting for his tax scam bill by adding a provision that benefitted him financially. It turns out Corker is nothing more than a financially corrupt conservative who happens to personally dislike Trump. Now it turns out Corker could be in actual legal trouble for his vote.
Corker, who is set to retire from the Senate in about a year, faced immediate blowback when it was revealed that he changed his vote to “yes” after the Republican Party made a change to the bill which sharply boosted Corker’s own personal financial prospects. There has been some debate in legal circles as to whether this qualifies an actual crime under the law, or merely a moral crime. But we may be about to find out – and Corker may be far from the only one facing potential reckoning.
The current Republican-controlled Congress naturally won’t investigate Bob Corker for any laws he may have broken in the name of voting for their corrupt tax bill. However, with Corker set to become a private citizen at the end of 2018, he could theoretically be prosecuted like anyone else who has committed financial fraud. If it can be demonstrated that he changed his vote specifically because he was offered a provision whose primary purpose was to personally enrich him, it could be categorized as a “kickback” or essentially a bribe… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <The Palmer Report>
I disagree with the author about prosecuting Corker, because even when intent is obvious as it is here, proving it to a legal certainty is a virtually impossible task.
Amy Goodman covered the story, including Corker’s absurd protestations.
Now, if Corker were innocent of switching his vote for a bribe, all he had to do is present a viable reason for doing so. He did not. But if you believe that he didn’t do it, you probably also believe the the Pope is not Catholic, and that bears never, ever shit in the woods.
RESIST THE REPUBLICAN REICH!!
10 Responses to “The Corker Kickback”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
He certainly does look like a snowflake in that photo.
IANAL, but assuming you’re correct and the statute is written in such a way that intent must be proved, then you are also correct on your conclusion. This may be an argumant for tweaking the statute … but that will not even be thinkable for at least a year.
Excellent video, Tom.ANY repub who votes for this tax bill has no heart, Corker, Cornyn, all of them.!!!
There’s a good showing of folks RESISTING on site, I heard, hope that they are all right.!!
This is how the tDump people, and the congressional leadership puled the reins in on several other GOPIGS, with bribes that get to be called by euphemistic names! Susan Collins was bribed, as were others, as pointed out lst week!
Most of them should probably be prosecuted.
When Corker flipped his vote I told my husband there was absolutely no reason for him to do so other than a direct threat to his life and/or family or some “beautiful” pension plan. As it turned out, it was the latter. This time the GOP had to bow deep, they went as far as a provision that can literally be traced to one man.
That is morally corrupt, and equal to the morally corrupt provisions/amendments they’ve added to get the votes of other Republicans. I’ve voiced my unbelief and outrage over the banana-republic-style of legislating here before; there’s no need to repeat it.But why should the GOP care; they’re not going to investigate themselves and they are safe in the knowledge that if an amendment or provision doesn’t have a footnote or such which says that this particular one was added for Corker and Corker only and has a lot of signatures including that of Corker, there’s little chance this will ever stand in court. As Edie says: most of then should [then] probably be prosecuted.
I knew it was too good to be true — a Republican with morals and ethics! Just like leopards, Republicans never change their spots! Pure greed!
As Amy Goodman noted, large corporations, LLCs and others including Drumpf will benefit the most. Corker deals in commercial real estate as does Drumpf. Those hurt the most by this bill will be the elderly, low income persons, families, Puerto Rico and others. Additionally, there are other tax policies like the killing of the individual mandate for Obamacare and the child tax credit that will affect middle and low income people disproportionately.
Philip Alston, a UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, said “at the end of the day, particularly in a rich country like the USA, the persistence of extreme poverty is a political choice made by those in power. With political will, it could readily be eliminated.” (Common Dreams)
There is absolutely no political will on the part of Republicans to change this. All Republicans should be held accountable for this fiasco.
I was miffed that Cornyn said that Democrats refused to participate in the tax overhaul without saying why — a very pointed dig.
Votes to pass: Question
I have a question here: I was under the assumption that in order for the senate to pass any bill, budget, legislation, it must have 60 votes. Now, I see that to pass a bill, a GOP budget, with only 51 votes needed. What happened here? Did I miss something… Was there a change in the number of votes required to pass legislation… Can anyone answer this for me? Thanks. Hugzzz.
.
The 60-vote rule is for cloture. Cloture is to end debate. If they have satisfied the required debate time and there is no filibuster (which, you may remember, must now be a speaking filibuster) they don’t need to invoke cloture. This goes back to the “nuclear option” thing which has been simmering since 2009 and more or less took effect about the time of Gorsuch’s nomination. It boils down to if Republicans can’t win fairly, they cheat.
You may have noticed McConnell being quoted about bringing it to the floor after ten hours of debate. The “hours of debate” required is a critical number, and apparently it is now ten.
While JD is correct, it’s not the reason for no 60 in this case. Bills introduced that meet Budget Reconciliation Rules need only 50 votes to pass.
Thanks all. Worn Out hugs. ?