Critics pounced on a New York Times reporter's narrow definition of corruption as he published a new story on President Donald Trump's personal business dealings.
Investigative reporter Eric Lipton co-authored the new report on the president and his family marketing cryptocurrency and how those dealings have turned into a vehicle for foreign influence campaigns, which he described as "potentially corrupt" — and then provided his own interpretation of the term.
"Corruption requires explict quid pro quo," Lipton posted on Bluesky. "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."
Other social media users pushed back — hard.
"You can't just have the world's worst understanding of a thing then yell at social media about it," posted attorney Jesse Taylor.
"This is not true either legally or in a colloquial sense, but an NYT reporter says it like he's telling you the weather," posted the widely followed account Peter.
"Not to add to the dogpile, but the reality here is often the opposite. Tacit corruption can easily be worse because it's more deniable and a lot more lucrative," added Ryan Cooper, managing editor at The American Prospect.
"If a powerful journalist solicited and accepted a free car from someone they were reporting on, without any explicit quid pro quo, we would surely recognize that as corruption," said Eric Columbus, special litigation counsel at the U.S. House of Representatives’ Office of General Counsel.
"Seriously? No," said lawyer David Sugerman. "Corruption does not require explicit quid pro quo—it’s simply abuse of entrusted power for gain. (If you’re basing this take on Snyder v US, the SCOTUS case, you’re misreading it, and you’re giving life to Orwell, 'The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.')"
EXCLUSIVE: Breastfeeding mom of US citizen sues Kristi Noem after being grabbed by ICE
"I appreciate your reporting, but this really, really is far off the mark," posted attorney Sean Hecht. "Your opinion here on the definition of “corruption” doesn’t track any commonly used definition of the word. It’s not limited to what is illegal under whatever particular bribery statute you’re consulting here."
"This may actually be the dumbest statement I’ve ever seen an intelligent person make," said managing consultant and engineer Michael Planey. "Parsing the definition of corruption is exactly how Trump’s Justices put us into this situation in the first place. Let’s apply the Potter Stewart standard for obscenity to bribery: We know it when we see it!"
"This is the single worst post anyone has ever made on this site," added the popular account Grudgie the Whale. "Stop handing your wallet over to someone claiming to be an inspector. You are a journalist! You can evaluate claims based on plausibility and credibility."
"It’s not corruption unless it's grown in the corruption region of France, anything else is just sparkling bribery," said Bluesky user Ashley Fairbanks.