Is this bribery or not? Someone please explain this to me

[Vadem]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/

How can this be legal? She went to 33 state democratic parties and paid money to them to buy their superdelegates for her campaign. To me, this is bribery! Can someone explain how it is not bribery to buy superdelegates? Am I missing something in this report?

Please, educate me as to the legality or normality of this situation.

Thanks!

[northernsouthern]

1. Quid pro quo?

Quid pro quo ("something for something" or "this for that" in Latin) means an exchange of goods or services, where one transfer is contingent upon the other.

They use this rule, but in almost a moneybag since of it. It is my understanding that they went nuts on how specific it has to be to be a bribe. It sounds corrupt, but the courts seem to have opened the door to it.

[jillan]

2. It's legal bribery. She did it. But I don't think there is anything illegal.

[winter is coming]

3. We seem to spend a lot of time hearing/saying "but it's not illegal"

when it comes to the Clinton's behavior.

[tularetom]

4. Vote for Hillary! Technically what she did can't be called bribery!

[cantbeserious]

5. Unethical - Yes - Illegal - Don't Know - Surprised - Not This Citizen

eom

[Bob41213]

10. Exactly

[JonathanRackham]

6. No

Technically corruption.

[JudyM]

7. She's buying votes. She's a pragmatist... After all, that's what the big$ entities do with congress.

[think]

8. Seems Goldman Sachs isn't the only entity that uses legal loopholes to maximize it's advantage. /nt

[Scuba]

9. Shame on the 33 state party leaders who signed on to this scam.

Includes Martha Laning here in Wisconsin.