- corruption is in no way limited to quid pro quo bribery — by any vernacular or legal definition of the term. what should we be inferring about the NY Times’ reporting from this?
- Corruption requires explict quid pro quo. It is not corrupt to take an action that aligns with the interest of a person who gives you a gift, unless the official action was in direct response to that gift--a bribe. Terms matter. Accuracy and fairness matters. Regardless of what social media wants.
- The NYT should pretend that it's Hilary Clinton involved, and this semantic hair splitting would disappear in a minute.