[flagged]
fwiw, I had never heard of him before I looked him up. If I had to guess I'd say your label was based on some combo of political donations received and political positions taken but that seems like standard to below average corruption for Congress to me lol.
What on earth did you search for that you turned up nothing?
https://theridgewoodblog.net/representative-josh-gottheimer-...
I searched..."Josh Gottheimer corrupt". And that certainly didn't come up. But again...that's not a very convincing link. It's literally just his opponent saying "he's corrupt".
I obviously did. It's far from the only one, since we have access to Google.
> doing something that is extremely common?
Something extremely common of Congress members who are insider trading, like Feinstein (among others, as you mentioned), yes. Deciding that any critical analysis are politically motivated reports is a typical partisan approach to de-escalating obvious malfeasance, which can be seen on any of the usual media suspects. Why is this person a legislator when they can obviously be one hell of a successful stock broker, a real-life superstar? Must be a coincidence.
Can't be outraged at the right kind of evidence, so why waste the time being critical of legislators? This is, partly, how the US political system has been corrupted. Citation-please-style dismissal implicitly supports the status quo. Only if they are prosecuted, is it tasteful to declare them guilty, otherwise, nothing to see here. Must be working as intended.
If my family lived in his state, and there was a superior candidate, we would get more involved in the politics.
Certainly not. The point was not to prove guilt, but to demonstrate that it was trivial to detect smoke.
> I should pretty easily be able to find...I dunno, at least an accusation of corruption somewhere,
This was a direct refutation of your statement, because you did not even do a search before describing the state of the political landscape. I stand by the point I made.