Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Antichristus, a woodcut by Lucas Cranach the Elder of the pope using the temporal power to grant authority to a ruler contributing generously to the Catholic Church. Quid pro quo (Latin: "something for something") is a Latin phrase used in English to mean an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is contingent upon the other; "a favor for a favor".
United States (1991), the Supreme Court held that the "under color of official right" prong of the Hobbs Act could be used to prosecute political corruption as long as there was a quid pro quo. Prior to McCormick, there was a circuit split on this question. The next year, in Evans v. United States (1992), the Court held that no affirmative act ...
Political corruption is the use of powers by government officials or their network contacts for illegitimate private gain. Forms of corruption vary, but can include bribery, lobbying, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, parochialism, patronage, influence peddling, graft, and embezzlement. Corruption may facilitate criminal enterprise such as drug ...
Much of the talk about the impeachment inquiry against President Trump has centered around whether there was a quid pro quo in his dealings with Ukraine. What's the meaning of this old Latin ...
The most public critic was US Representative Elizabeth Holtzman, who, as the lowest-ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, was the only representative who explicitly asked whether the pardon was a quid pro quo. Ford cut Holtzman off, declaring, "There was no deal, period, under no circumstances." See also. Smoke-filled room
The announcement comes a week after the top Democratic lawmaker on a U.S. House oversight panel sought information from nine oil companies about reports about "quid pro quo propositions" made by ...
A Republican congressman defended Trump's conduct toward Ukraine by saying, "If there was a quid pro quo, it certainly wasn't a very effective one." GOP Rep. : 'If there was a quid pro quo, it ...
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. A majority of justices held that, as provided by section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, limits on election expenditures are unconstitutional. In a per curiam (by the Court) opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits ...