If Hunter is eventually indicted and convicted for participating in an influence-peddling scheme that benefited Joe, as he well should be, both would be participants or co-conspirators in public corruption.
Of course.
As for my framework, influence peddling would be categorized as engagement in the public sphere. He would have crossed over into the public sphere by virtue of that act. So far as I know to date, his activities have been in the private domain. His holding a position on the Burisma board would be an example of where a private activity has been spun by critics as somehow public corruption.
Whether Hunter participated in politics is irrelevant. The distinction you make is baseless. And
You have not disabused me of the soundness. Perhaps my generalized use of the word, "politics," was not clear or was not the best choice. I had in mind campaign participation when I chose the word because that's one way we have seen where people who are not public officials play in the public arena presenting opportunities for public corruption, campaign finance, for example. There are, of course, other ways where non-officials can engage in public corruption, bribery being the most obvious, the one you find in the dictionary. |
