有人解释一下Snyder bribe case 吗？

高院认为bribe 和gratitude不一样. 总觉得有点怪

簡單的說就是"顏色很重要"，如老貓在下面所說，川粽已經用一己之力推翻瞭美國司法的獨立性與公正性，包括 §666(a). (真的是 666，非常好笑 !)

判決的全文如下，

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf

重點是收錢的時間點，before or after 的問題，所以重點是，日後要做貪官收錢，記住，不要在事前收，必須在事後收，最好事先記帳，將來下台後再收。(大法官用  44 頁 就是在說明這一點， OK )

Federal and state law distinguish between two kinds of payments to
public officials—bribes and gratuities. Bribes are typically payments
made or agreed to before an official act in order to influence the public
official with respect to that future official act. Gratuities are typically
payments made to a public official after an official act as a reward or
token of appreciation. 

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/supreme-court-overturns-bob-mcdonnells-corruption-convictions-224833

佛吉尼亚前州长被判受贿，这个前州长的夫人从某个“好朋友”接受很多礼物，然后前州长出席这个好朋友的公司活动。结果2016年高院决定，只有州长用官方行为换得礼物，才是受贿。仅仅是出席活动，给人打电话，不是官方行为，不是受贿。也就是是说，一个州长可以出卖自己的演讲，站台，评语，这些都不是受贿。排除高院太“天真”，我实在不理解他们的思路。

“There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute,” Roberts wrote. “A more limited interpretation of the term ‘official act’ leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption, while comporting with the text of the statute and the precedent of this Court.”

The justices set forth a straightforward rule: “Setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or hosting an event does not, standing alone, qualify as an ‘official act.’”

豁免已经被abuse 了.

川普不一定是自己收钱啊，他有五个孩子，还有多少公司，你有什么证据把钱和他个人联系上？

国际足联的贿赂罪，有的委员的孩子接受去欧洲的学费换取委员投某个城市一票，都曾经被算成贿赂。

10年前Citizen Unite判决，奥巴马说会导致外国势力通过公司操纵美国竞选，但是一个大法官还公开质疑。现在很清楚很多外国势力都在用黑钱支持某个候选人。

卖官也不能起诉了，因为任命是官方行为。