There was blatant bribery where one state was gifted special benefits to purchase a yea vote on the bill.
Evidence beyond reasonable doubt - e.g. conviction in court of law, please. Evidence that your allegations, if true, would have made a difference.
Umm, yes, this is true. It was in Nebraska, the infamous "Cornhusker Kickback." I remember it well, I live here in Nebraska. Sen. Ben Nelson (D) was the crucial 60th vote necessary to pass it through the Senate. He was really, really hearing it from us Nebraskans not to vote for it. Finally Obama came up with a special exemption just for Nebraska having to do with (I think) Medicare funding, where Nebraska wouldn't have to pay for some sort of Medicare expansion. That secured Nelson's vote. That exemption did end up applying to all the states after it came out in the media, but yes, Nelson's vote was basically bought by Obama.
Others were pushed out of congress through scandals which may or may not have been fabricated.
"Something bad may have happened but I have no evidence for it."
The legislation itself was never fully available so that we could even know what was up for vote.
Sorry, what? Are you claiming that your representatives didn't have the full text of primary legislation available, or that secondary legislation is left to the executive (which is standard for all lawmaking)?
This also is true. OK, TECHNICALLY the full text was available, but for a matter of a few hours. Nancy Pelosi (D) has often been quoted as saying "We need to pass the bill to find out what's in it." The bill was in a near constant state of flux, with the final version only hours old when voted on. It is not humanly possible to read and understand a multi-thousand page document in that amount of time.
The vote itself was pushed time and time again until the outcome was assured.
What do you mean by this? That the legislation was modified until enough people were happy with it? IOW standard legislative process?
Heck, they even kept the legislature in DC during the winter break so that legislators wouldn't go home and hear directly from the people.
What do you actually mean by this? Define "kept".
The Senate was kept in session far beyond when they normally would have returned home for Christmas. The Senate vote happened late on Christmas Eve. Normally Senators would have returned home several days earlier, at which time they likely would have started getting a huge earful from constituents.
A major bill like this, getting voted through with not one vote from the opposite party all but ensured something like this would happen.
"The opposite party". Way to declare your enjoyment for two-party politics. It was passed. Nobody forced people to vote Democrat, and nobody forced the elected Congresscritters to vote in favour of the bill.
Democrats and Republicans are basically opposites. I can't see how one could argue that.
What the GOP is doing is no worse than what the dems had to do to pass it in the first place.
"HE STARTED IT!" Grow the fuck up.