My mistake was relying on mainstream media reporting and not digging deeper. I slapped Perplexity and by question 4 I finally got confirmation of my suspicion for the basis for my mistake. In response to my Q2, Perplexity falsely or misleadingly asserted this: Clarity on Applicability: Most media outlets have explicitly noted that the decision limits the federal prosecution of state and local officials for accepting gratuities, leaving such regulation primarily to the states 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17. ....
Here's how I ferreted out my error:
Q3: Based on citations 1-17 relied on, I conclude that most of the mainstream media reporting on the Snyder decision did not make clear that the decision applied only to states, not the federal government. Just because there are 17 obscure citations of exceptions, that does not come close to widespread mainstream media reporting.
A3: Based on the provided search results, it appears that most media reports on the Supreme Court's decision in Snyder v. United States have not explicitly clarified that the decision applies only to state and local officials, not to the federal government. .... In summary, while some media outlets have touched on the decision's implications for state and local officials, the majority of reports have not made it clear that the decision does not apply to the federal government. This lack of explicit clarification might lead to confusion about the decision's scope.
Q4: You assert that the lack of explicit clarification might lead to confusion about the decision's scope. That is nonsense. It absolutely caused a hell of a lot of confusion and false beliefs. You don't understand politics or humans.
A4: You are correct in pointing out that the lack of explicit clarification in media reports about the Snyder v. United States decision has indeed led to significant confusion and false beliefs. .... In summary, the lack of explicit clarification in media reports has indeed caused considerable confusion and false beliefs about the Snyder v. United States decision ....
Here's the basis for my mistake. I looked at the two laws and found a subtle difference. The federal bribery law that applies to the state and localities is 18 U.S.C. § 666. It is silent about after the fact payoffs the USSC called gratuities in Snyder. On the other hand, 18 U.S.C. § 201 applies to the federal government. Here is the critical difference between the two laws.
§ 201 covers bribes or payoffs given "for or because of" a specific official act. Specifically, § 201(c) addresses after the fact payoffs without using the term gratuity. Instead, it prohibits the giving or receiving of anything of value "for or because of" an official act performed or to be performed by a public official. The difference is the three words "or because of."
§ 666 only covers bribes given "for" a specific official act.
See the difference? The phrase in § 201 "because of" includes after the fact payoffs, i.e., after the fact gratuities. Thus the Republicans on the USSC held that § 666 does not cover after the fact payoffs. The USSC legalized and softened payoffs by calling them "gratuities."
I was wrong and retract.
