[somenameforme]

The point he's making is that these things are not illegal. They're bribery, but carried out in a way designed to fall within the bounds of the law. Because actually outlawing every single way of bribing somebody is, in general, impossible. And it's difficult to make any progress even plugging the holes that do exist, because the people that could do that are the very ones taking advantage of those holes.

And removing a regulator is extremely difficult. For non-independent regulatory agencies it can only be done by the President (who generally is the same one that appointed him). For independent regulatory agencies it can again only be done by the President but this time only for just cause and in a process that can involve judicial appeal and involvement. Removing a judge, by contrast, is done by congress and requires impeachment/conviction. So rather than one being easier/harder, it's just that the process is different. Regulators are 'controlled' by the executive with judicial oversight, and the judiciary is 'controlled' by the legislative.

It's all a big game of rock, paper, scissors in many ways.

[vel0city]

> And removing a regulator is extremely difficult.

This isn't based in reality in the slightest, or you just haven't been paying attention to the Trump administration. It seems like Trump has had little issue replacing a lot of key regulators in a heartbeat. And in a few months after we get the opinion from Trump v. Slaughter it'll probably be stupid simple for the President to remove anyone for any reason anytime regardless of if its an "independent" agency.

Meanwhile we've had Supreme Court justices openly receiving millions of dollars in bribes while deciding cases in favor of those who paid the bribes, and nothing is happening.

[somenameforme]

You have literally 1 person in the entire world capable of firing somebody, and then that results in a case being heard by the Supreme Court when that person tries to invoke that power, after lower courts immediately said Nope. That is, absolutely by definition, somebody who is extremely difficult to fire. Extremely difficult does not mean impossible.

And you calling something a bribe doesn't make it a bribe in the legal sense, which is the point. For instance big pharma "donated" hundreds of millions of dollars across Congress the President just in the midst of the pandemic. Those beneficiaries, in turn, passed laws and created unprecedented and controversial defacto mandates which directly drove tens of billions of dollars in profits for these "donors." Is this a bribe?

Given your likely ideological perspective, I assume you would vehemently insist it's not. Why?

[vel0city]

You're comparing firing someone who serves a statutory term limt at the pleasure of a position that gets changed out every 4-8 years also with statutory term limits compared to trying to fire someone serving for life who takes 218 House members and 67 Senators to fire.

Yes, its far easier for that one person to make that decision to fire someone than have two hundred and eighty five people agree at the same time to fire someone. That person with a term limit will be replaced more often than the person with a lifetime appointment. I don't understand how you're even making that argument otherwise. Incredibly illogical.

And before you say "bUt I dIdn'T SaY tHaT!", yes you did make the argument its just as easy to fire a SC justice as a regulator.

> So rather than one being easier/harder, it's just that the process is different.

The process is different, yes, and that process makes it a hell of a lot harder.

> Given your likely ideological perspective, I assume you would vehemently insist it's not. Why?

Projecting an identity on to me and asking me to defend a position I have not taken. Really arguing in bad faith there. Depending on what exactly you're talking about I probably would say those are essentially bribes. Like a President receiving gold bars to have him change trade policy. Pretty extreme corruption wouldn't you say?