Sestak job offer a bribe?

[applecorped]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/us/politics/25baker.html

"For three months, the White House has refused to say whether it offered a job to Representative Joe Sestak (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/joe_sestak/index.html?inline=nyt-per) to get him to drop his challenge to Senator Arlen Specter (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/arlen_specter/index.html?inline=nyt-per) in a Pennsylvania Democratic primary, as Mr. Sestak has asserted.

But the White House wants everyone who suspects that something untoward, or even illegal, might have happened to rest easy: though it still will not reveal what happened, the White House is reassuring skeptics that it has examined its own actions and decided it did nothing wrong. Whatever it was that it did."


Are you reassured?

[The Painter]

Are you reassured?

Yes. I am reassured that my initial opinion of Obama was correct. There is no HOPE and CHANGE, just gullible people. What was that line in that song by The Who? "Here's the new Boss. Same as the old Boss".


it has examined its own actions and decided it did nothing wrong. Whatever it was that it did."

Tiger Woods should have tried this.

[WildCat]

The most transparent administration ever ever!

[tyr_13]

Yes, we have an accusation with little to no evidence, but hell, it sounds bad for the White House, so why the hell not?

[rwguinn]

The most transparent administration ever ever!
According to Terry Pratchett, "Transparent" can have two meanings:
1. You can see everything behind it;
2. Invisible

[MikeMangum]

Yes, we have an accusation with little to no evidence, but hell, it sounds bad for the White House, so why the hell not?

The evidence is one of the principles involved confirming (http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0510/Sestak_confirms_WH_job_offer_to_get_out_of_Senate_ race.html?showall) that it happened. Whether it actually did happen is another story, but I don't see what motivation Sestak would have had to lie about it.

[WildCat]

The evidence is one of the principles involved confirming (http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0510/Sestak_confirms_WH_job_offer_to_get_out_of_Senate_ race.html?showall) that it happened. Whether it actually did happen is another story, but I don't see what motivation Sestak would have had to lie about it.
Oh yeah, but what has Sestak said about it since the party bosses told him to STFU? Therefore... no evidences!

[tyr_13]

The evidence is one of the principles involved confirming (http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0510/Sestak_confirms_WH_job_offer_to_get_out_of_Senate_ race.html?showall) that it happened. Whether it actually did happen is another story, but I don't see what motivation Sestak would have had to lie about it.

I'm betting he was offered a job, but that the job was a bribe to get him out of running is another matter entirely. It's possible that the higher up dems thought he'd be more useful in the other position. I'm not going to say it's obviously a bribe or that the offer in and of itself is evidence of it.

[WildCat]

I'm betting he was offered a job, but that the job was a bribe to get him out of running is another matter entirely. It's possible that the higher up dems thought he'd be more useful in the other position. I'm not going to say it's obviously a bribe or that the offer in and of itself is evidence of it.
Do you think it's enough for an investigation?

[Lurker]

I thought the wording for a bribery charge was "cash or a thing of value". Sestak was not offered cash. Is a job a thing of value? I would posit that "thing of value" is a tangible item of some sort - gold, car, bonds, real estate. A job does have value but I doubt that this would fall under bribery rubric. If it does, then "thing of value" is failry broad and anything could be construed as a "thing of value". An endorsement would be a thing of value by this definition. A quid pro quo vote for a bill would be a thing of value.

If we have "thing of value" loosely defined it would seem that bribery charges would be all over the place in DC and pretty much any government.

[MikeMangum]

I'm betting he was offered a job, but that the job was a bribe to get him out of running is another matter entirely. It's possible that the higher up dems thought he'd be more useful in the other position. I'm not going to say it's obviously a bribe or that the offer in and of itself is evidence of it.

Well, the fact that Sestak explicitly said that he was offered a job as a quid pro quo for dropping out of the race, and that the offer was presented to him as such, clarifies things a bit, doesn't it?

Whether he was just spouting off and it never actually happened, we don't know. But you have to ask...why would he have said it if it wasn't true?

Cui bono?

[tyr_13]

Do you think it's enough for an investigation?

Not really. I mean, even if it found this was an offer of, "We'll give you this job if you don't run as a reward for your loyalty," instead of, "We are offering you this job because you'd be good at it and obviously that means if you take it you can't run," there isn't anything that important there.

If you mean a journalistic investigation rather than an official one, then yes, by all means.

[MikeMangum]

That noted right wing rag, the NYT, has an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/us/politics/25baker.html?hp) about the issue:
For three months, the White House has refused to say whether it offered a job to Representative Joe Sestak to get him to drop his challenge to Senator Arlen Specter in a Pennsylvania Democratic primary, as Mr. Sestak has asserted.

But the White House wants everyone who suspects that something untoward, or even illegal, might have happened to rest easy: though it still will not reveal what happened, the White House is reassuring skeptics that it has examined its own actions and decided it did nothing wrong. Whatever it was that it did.

...

“Improper or not, did you offer him a job in the administration?” asked the host, Bob Schieffer.

“I’m not going to get further into what the conversations were,” Mr. Gibbs replied. “People that have looked into them assure me that they weren’t inappropriate in any way.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the “trust us” response from the White House has not exactly put the matter to rest. With Mr. Sestak’s victory over Mr. Specter in last week’s primary, the questions have returned with intensity, only to remain unanswered. Mr. Gibbs deflected questions 13 times at a White House briefing last week just two days after the primary. Mr. Sestak, a retired admiral, has reaffirmed his assertion without providing any details, like who exactly offered what job.

[MikeMangum]

Not really. I mean, even if it found this was an offer of, "We'll give you this job if you don't run as a reward for your loyalty," instead of, "We are offering you this job because you'd be good at it and obviously that means if you take it you can't run," there isn't anything that important there.

There isn't anything important there...except for a bribe. What you described is exactly what is at issue, because it is illegal.

[Meadmaker]

I thought the wording for a bribery charge was "cash or a thing of value". Sestak was not offered cash. Is a job a thing of value? I would posit that "thing of value" is a tangible item of some sort - gold, car, bonds, real estate. A job does have value but I doubt that this would fall under bribery rubric. If it does, then "thing of value" is failry broad and anything could be construed as a "thing of value". An endorsement would be a thing of value by this definition. A quid pro quo vote for a bill would be a thing of value.

If we have "thing of value" loosely defined it would seem that bribery charges would be all over the place in DC and pretty much any government.

A job could indeed be a thing of value, and it could be considered so under bribery laws, because it is a vehicle for transferring money. On the other hand, appointing someone to a political position on the basis of political behavior is not generally considered bribery. It's also difficult to make "not running for Senate" part of a bribery deal. All that happened here is that there was some political deal making. As you note, if this were a crime, most of our elected and appointed officials would have to be considered criminals.

[WildCat]

It's also difficult to make "not running for Senate" part of a bribery deal. All that happened here is that there was some political deal making.
It wasn't to "not run" for Senate, but to drop out of a race he was already in.

[drkitten]

Whether he was just spouting off and it neve actually happened, we don't know. But you have to ask...why would he have said it if it wasn't true?


Oh, be serious.. Telling a lie like that would be great publicity for him.

* It establishes him as a serious contender (he must have a chance at winning, or the administration wouldn't try to buy him off)
* It demonstrates that he's a man of integrity (he can't be bought)

and most importantly

* It gets his name in the papers in a positive context.

The fact that he would benefit from telling such a lie doesn't mean that he is telling a lie. But it's naive to pretend that he didn't benefit from such a claim; if it really didn't benefit him, why would he have mentioned it at all. (Just because you're offered a shady deal doesn't mean you have to tell the papers about it.)

[applecorped]

* It gets his name in the papers in a positive context.


Positive in what way?

[Meadmaker]

It wasn't to "not run" for Senate, but to drop out of a race he was already in.


Either way, it's pretty normal stuff in DC.

Importantly, it's also not an abuse of office. A Congressman selling his vote is an abuse of office. What is it that Sestak was selling?

I'm no lawyer, and if there is one here they might be able to figure out where the line gets crossed between deal making and bribery. Maybe, just maybe, if someone actually came to Sestak and said, "Joe, if you drop out of the race, we'll make you Undersecretary for Dust Bunnies." there might be a case there. I doubt it, because Sestak hasn't given away anything in exchange for the "bribe", but maybe there is something.

If, however, they said, "Joe, that Senate seat is really important to us, and we think Arlen is our best chance to win it in November. We'd like to think of you as a team player, and we were really considering you for Undersecretary for Dust Bunnies, but we can't have someone in that position who doesn't have the full trust of the President. I'm sure that if you were to drop out of this race, that would really show your commitment to the administration's goals, and I think your nomination would be looked on very favorably." then, I'm extremely confident it would be perfectly legal. Beyond that, it wouldn't just be perfectly legal. It would be totally normal and part of business as usual.

If anyone really thought Obama was going to bring the kind of "change" that ended this sort of deal making, they were hopelessly naive, but it isn't criminal.

[Lurker]

A job could indeed be a thing of value, and it could be considered so under bribery laws, because it is a vehicle for transferring money. On the other hand, appointing someone to a political position on the basis of political behavior is not generally considered bribery. It's also difficult to make "not running for Senate" part of a bribery deal. All that happened here is that there was some political deal making. As you note, if this were a crime, most of our elected and appointed officials would have to be considered criminals.

I would say that a job could be considered a bribe if the job in question were disproportionate to the person's experience and history. If someone was used to earning $50k/year and were suddenly offered a job in exchange for dropping out of the race and the new job paid $1M/year then I would agree that this would more easily look like a bribe. If the "bribe' job was commensurate with the previous experience then I would say no.

[DavidJames]

If anyone really thought Obama was going to bring the kind of "change" that ended this sort of deal making, they were hopelessly naive, but it isn't criminal.
I would say that a job could be considered a bribe if the job in question were disproportionate to the person's experience and history. If someone was used to earning $50k/year and were suddenly offered a job in exchange for dropping out of the race and the new job paid $1M/year then I would agree that this would more easily look like a bribe. If the "bribe' job was commensurate with the previous experience then I would say no.Two very astute and reasonable comments.

[WildCat]

Either way, it's pretty normal stuff in DC.

Importantly, it's also not an abuse of office. A Congressman selling his vote is an abuse of office. What is it that Sestak was selling?
Hatch Political Activity Act (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hatch_Political_Activity_Act):
Sec. 2.
It shall be unlawful for any person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department, independent agency, or other agency of the United States (including any corporation controlled by the United States or any agency thereof, and any corporation all of the capital stock of which is owned by the United States or any agency thereof), to use his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting the election or the nomination of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories and insular possessions.

Sec. 3.
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to promise any employment, position, work, compensation, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in any election.
It may be "normal stuff" for some races, but it's illegal in a race for the US Senate.

[Crossbow]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/us/politics/25baker.html

"For three months, the White House has refused to say whether it offered a job to Representative Joe Sestak (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/joe_sestak/index.html?inline=nyt-per) to get him to drop his challenge to Senator Arlen Specter (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/arlen_specter/index.html?inline=nyt-per) in a Pennsylvania Democratic primary, as Mr. Sestak has asserted.

But the White House wants everyone who suspects that something untoward, or even illegal, might have happened to rest easy: though it still will not reveal what happened, the White House is reassuring skeptics that it has examined its own actions and decided it did nothing wrong. Whatever it was that it did."


Are you reassured?

Well, derailing the opposition by giving them an inside job is tactic that has a rather extensive history in Washington.

I think it was President Johnson (the second Johnson) who did the same sort of thing and when asked why he said something like:

I would rather have him in the tent p***ing out, then outside of the tent p***ing in.

However, actually legally proving that job offer was really a bribe is going to be rather difficult to do. Especially when the supposed crime happened three months ago and nothing has been done about it since then.

So to answer your question, "Yes, I am reassured.".

[WildCat]

However, actually legally proving that job offer was really a bribe is going to be rather difficult to do.
Good thing they don't have to, because any job offer is illegal under the Hatch Act I cited above.

[Crossbow]

Good thing they don't have to, because any job offer is illegal under the Hatch Act I cited above.

Bingo!

Legally proving bribery is rather difficult since one has to show that both of parties have the understanding of what their respective roles are.

And in this case, since Sestak did not take the job, then there has not been any bribery.

Of course, one could say it was attempted bribery as opposed to bribery, but then one would have to show an illegal intent on the part of the Administration; and showing that the Administration had an illegal intent when it made the job offer, will be quite difficult indeed.

[Lurker]

Hatch Political Activity Act (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hatch_Political_Activity_Act):

It may be "normal stuff" for some races, but it's illegal in a race for the US Senate.

Thanks Wildcat. I'll amend my previous postings on this topic and agree that there should be an investigation.

[MikeMangum]

Oh, be serious.. Telling a lie like that would be great publicity for him.

* It establishes him as a serious contender (he must have a chance at winning, or the administration wouldn't try to buy him off)
* It demonstrates that he's a man of integrity (he can't be bought)

and most importantly

* It gets his name in the papers in a positive context.

The fact that he would benefit from telling such a lie doesn't mean that he is telling a lie. But it's naive to pretend that he didn't benefit from such a claim; if it really didn't benefit him, why would he have mentioned it at all. (Just because you're offered a shady deal doesn't mean you have to tell the papers about it.)

That's possible. I don't know enough his political situation to judge.

[drkitten]

Positive in what way?

Anti-corruption, and anti-establishment (which is an important thing given how poll numbers have been dropping for "the establishment.") Not to mention the two other positive aspects that were listed in the very post you didn't bother to read before responding to.....

[drkitten]

Hatch Political Activity Act (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hatch_Political_Activity_Act):

It may be "normal stuff" for some races, but it's illegal in a race for the US Senate.

Obligatory nitpick -- the sort of stuff that defense lawyers love.

No one in the administration would have used "his authority" to interfere with the election. If Sestak had chosen to withdraw, he would have done so under his own authority. Section 2 probably doesn't apply.

And there's a loophole in section 3. Sestak would not have been rewarded for political "activity" but for political inactivity (choosing not to run).

I agree that this is a major violation of the spirit of the Hatch Act, but I'm not sure it violates the letter. Certainly a good defense lawyer would have fun with this.

[Meadmaker]

Good thing they don't have to, because any job offer is illegal under the Hatch Act I cited above.

Maybe if presented as a quid pro quo there might be a violation here. If everyone who ever supported a candidate with the reasonable expectation of a political appointment were prosecuted under these terms, most of the ambassadors and a good fraction of the cabinet secretaries would have to be thrown in jail.

Does anyone seriously think that deals like this are uncommon? A more common sort of deal runs like this. Congressman X is considering trying to "upgrade" to Senate. However, as a Congressman, his seat is safe, but he isn't sure of his ability to win the Senate race. He talks to the Powers That Be in his party, and arranges that if he loses, he gets in line for a nice political appointment as a cabinet member, undersecretary, or ambassador.

During every presidential primary season, there is always talk about deals being made for a candidate to drop out and throw his support behind a rival. Those deals often involve appointments. It's normal.

And does anyone seriously think that people who work full time on political campaigns do so out of the goodness of their heart. Those positions don't pay squat. However, if you help Mr. Smith become Senator Smith, Senator Smith is going to need some staff in his Senate office, and those positions pay a lot better. Those kinds of deals, which are normal, everyday, elements of politics, are just as much a violation of the Hatch act as is this alleged deal.

So go ahead and investigate, but I can't imagine the conversation that could have occurred that would result in a conviction.

[applecorped]

Anti-corruption, and anti-establishment (which is an important thing given how poll numbers have been dropping for "the establishment.") Not to mention the two other positive aspects that were listed in the very post you didn't bother to read before responding to.....

:confused:

[applecorped]

Obligatory nitpick -- the sort of stuff that defense lawyers love.

No one in the administration would have used "his authority" to interfere with the election. If Sestak had chosen to withdraw, he would have done so under his own authority. Section 2 probably doesn't apply.

And there's a loophole in section 3. Sestak would not have been rewarded for political "activity" but for political inactivity (choosing not to run).

I agree that this is a major violation of the spirit of the Hatch Act, but I'm not sure it violates the letter. Certainly a good defense lawyer would have fun with this.

:confused:

[applecorped]

Ejtm

[ravdin]

Heck no! We're talking about the Obama administration and all enlightened people know that rainbows shine from the man's backside.

[Puppycow]

Who cares? This is just politics as usual. On "This Week" George Will even said so.

[Puppycow]

Asking if someone is interested in a job is not a job offer, BTW.

Even if they did offer him a job there's no way you can ever prove an explicit quid pro quo unless they were so dumb as to put it in writing or something like that.

[tyr_13]

Thanks Wildcat. I'll amend my previous postings on this topic and agree that there should be an investigation.

Agreed, although I feel I should note that no matter what is found, anti-Obama people will trot this out and use it as evidence of the 'evil Obama'. It will be hard to sort out valid criticisms from invalid ones, like with the entire Starr thing.

[MattusMaximus]

Are you reassured?

Who cares? I don't.

But continue muckraking - 'tis entertaining :)

[applecorped]

Who cares?

Head meet sand.

[applecorped]

Impeach??

http://www.examiner.com/x-1087-Denver-News-Examiner~y2010m5d25-The-Sestak-fiasco-impeachment-sequel?cid=edition-rss-Denver

"Here’s the problem. If the White House did make such an offer, it’s a crime. Federal election law prohibits anyone from offering anything of any substantial value, including a job, to someone to influence their vote or their decision to run for office. Sestak is on record, several times, making the claim, so he can’t suddenly say it never happened without torpedoing his own election. This puts the White House in quite a pickle. They could conduct a smear campaign against their own candidate, or they could come clean and face potential impeachment. Impeachment is where this would go because the President is the head of the executive branch, which includes the Justice Department. He can’t be investigated by his own subordinates. It would have to go to Congress. "

[thaiboxerken]

Who cares? This is just politics as usual. On "This Week" George Will even said so.

If you don't care, then why don't you just not participate in the politics forum?

[KoihimeNakamura]

.. because this thread to him i..

You know, I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy.

(I'm ambivalent, because 'kicking him upstairs' has it's pluses as well as minuses..)

[leftysergeant]

The logic to apply the Hatch Act is too twistedto take seriously.

And then we have talking heads like the old toe-sucker Morris calling this worse than oputting Valerie Plame.

When people with a real brain start calling it a felony, I might listen.

Sestak wouldl be a benefit to the country in any job he could be appointed or elected to. The administration just didn't want him to go after this senate seat.

Nobody could have been harmed in any way.

It's kind of stupid that the same people shrieking about this are not insisting on prosecuting Cheney and Rummy for war crimes or the BP executives for murder.

[Puppycow]

If you don't care, then why don't you just not participate in the politics forum?

Gee, that makes sense. If I don't care about one thing, obviously I don't care about anything.

[thaiboxerken]

If you don't care, why participate in the threads you don't care for?

[Unabogie]

So, Bill Clinton offered Sestak an unpaid job to drop out of the race.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/white-house-used-bill-clinton-to-ask-sestak-to-drop-out-of-race/?hp

Which is total BRIBERY!!!

Almost as bad as when St. Ronnie offered a paid job for a GOPer to drop out...

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2010/5/27/14524/8364/278#c278

Is it too late to retroactively impeach Reagan?

[Travis]

So, is a President also not allowed to endorse any candidates too? Doesn't that also constitute "interfering" in an election?

[thaiboxerken]

Did Obama take all the guns away and turn us all into socialists yet?

[applecorped]

Did Obama take all the guns away and turn us all into socialists yet?


He's not qualified to.

[Thunder]

I think is going to warrent an apology...and a promise never to do it again.

and then that will be that.

though, Hannity thinks this may be bigger than Watergate.

:)

[Meadmaker]

I think is going to warrent an apology...and a promise never to do it again.

and then that will be that.

though, Hannity thinks this may be bigger than Watergate.

:)

Apologize? For what?

Not only is this politics as usual, it's politics as it ought to be. Really. It's ok for political parties to get together and work toward a common goal. Sometimes that means that an ambitious person decides not to seek something he desires, like a Senate seat, because his participation in the race doesn't fit with party goals. Sometimes, the party leadership tries to convince someone not to seek an office, and part of that process is to find a role for the person they want to bow out.

Fortunately for the Republicans they don't have the votes in the House of Representatives to bring up an impeachment measure on this. That way, they won't look as stupid as they did in 1998. The embarassment will be confined to the Tea Party and the talk radio yappers, and the rest of the country already thinks that they're nuts.

By the way, the next thing I'm going to look up on google is whether anyone has ever been prosecuted for violating the Hatch Act in this manner. I'm pretty certain I won't be finding any.

[leftysergeant]

By the way, the next thing I'm going to look up on google is whether anyone has ever been prosecuted for violating the Hatch Act in this manner. I'm pretty certain I won't be finding any.

Worse has happened. A crooked federal prosecutor threw Don Siegelmann in prison for something like this. Why Obama hasn't cleaned out the worthless thugs that the Shrub appointed is beyond me.

[Meadmaker]

Worse has happened. A crooked federal prosecutor threw Don Siegelmann in prison for something like this. Why Obama hasn't cleaned out the worthless thugs that the Shrub appointed is beyond me.

The Sieglemann case is nothing like this. In that case, Siegelmann was accused of soliciting a very large campaign contribution in exchange for placing someone in a position where that someone would have significant influence over funneling of state funds to corporations in which he had a vested interest.

Whether or not that really happened is a separate issue, but the charge itself concerned a matter that, if true, would be genuine corruption.

In the case of Obama/Emmanuel/Clinton/Sestak, there's nothing to see here. Even if the charges were absolutely true, there would not be anything illegal, or even unethical, or even immoral, or even embarassing. Dealmaking as part of politics is ok.

(As an aside, there is only one thing that made my ears perk up this week about this situation. When it was revealed that the position offered was an unpaid one, my skeptic ears went up a bit. Who would seriously ask a sitting Congressman to drop out of a Senate race, and offer an unpaid job in return? An appointment to a government position, sure, but an unpaid advisory board? Something's fishy. Still, that's no excuse to launch a government fishing expedition in the hopes of turning up something.)

[leftysergeant]

The Sieglemann case is nothing like this. In that case, Siegelmann was accused of soliciting a very large campaign contribution in exchange for placing someone in a position where that someone would have significant influence over funneling of state funds to corporations in which he had a vested interest.

Whether or not that really happened is a separate issue, but the charge itself concerned a matter that, if true, would be genuine corruption.

Not really, the campaign was for an issue rather than a candidate, and the position was one that the individual had alrrady held, for no pay. The fact that the prosecutor and judge had ties tro the krank Rove had nothing to do with it, right?

(Wanna buy a toll bridge over the Hudson?)

Who would seriously ask a sitting Congressman to drop out of a Senate race, and offer an unpaid job in return? An appointment to a government position, sure, but an unpaid advisory board? Something's fishy. Still, that's no excuse to launch a government fishing expedition in the hopes of turning up something.)

I am thinking of logistics and the cost of a campoaign paid out of pocket, with no help from the party - for now. Sestak is still green in terms of elected office. The party wanted to fulfill the committment they made to Specter. They also wanted to keep the House seat.

Don't even look for Spector to be in adequate health to make another run in six years.

That would clearly be Sestak's turn to run with full party support from the day he files. In the mean time, he could be making a name for himself in some visible though not remunerative position. This is not illegal.

[Meadmaker]

In the mean time, he could be making a name for himself in some visible though not remunerative position. This is not illegal.

I see what you mean. That could be the thought behind it. Perhaps there could be an implied offer of support in 2016, or perhaps the unpaid job was some other variation on a temporary offer until something more prestigious rolls around, which, again, would not be illegal, immoral, or unethical.

[leftysergeant]

The long and the short of it is that nothing of value was offered in exchange for an affirmative action. Case closed.

[applecorped]

The offer is the issue, not the value.

[tyr_13]

"Mr. Brown, if you drop out of the race, I'll give you a great big hug!"

"Men, take this man to jail!"

[applecorped]

Yes, that is an apt comparison.

[leftysergeant]

Yes, that is an apt comparison.
Precisely. Rightwhackers have no case.

[applecorped]

Precisely.

[Meadmaker]

I know I couldn't find any case where anyone was ever prosecuted for anything like this. I wonder if anyone else will be able to find something.

[BeAChooser]

The offer is the issue, not the value.

Actually, the veracity of the claimed offer is the issue. Something just doesn't make sense here. First Sestak claims the offer was for a very important job and makes no mention of it being unpaid. When it's pointed out this would be a serious violation of the law, the Obama administration stonewalls for almost 6 months. Then as the pressure mounts, with demands for a special prosecutor, the Obama administration suddently meets with Sestak's brother, whose role in all this is still unclear. When Obama is asked at a press conference, rather than give us the simple answer they now have offered, defers and claims we'll get one "soon". Then the explanation that's offered is ridiculous. That Sestak would give up a likely senate seat for an unpaid position which it turns out that he could not legally hold anyway. And Sestak begins to change his story. And we suddenly get Bill Clinton (the liar extraordinaire) thrown into the mix with a claim he was the one who passed the offer on to Sestak. Of course he and his staff refuse to speak to the press. Never mind that the Bauer (the lawyer whose worked so hard to hide Obama's history) stated there were "effortS" to get Sestak to drop out over several months time, a description at odds with the one very very very brief phone conversation that Sestak claimed took place.

This smells to high heaven to anyone having the least bit of skepticism. But then I'm convinced that's really in short supply around JREF.

[thaiboxerken]

Seems to me that some neo-cons are really grasping to find Obama of doing something unethical.

[Puppycow]

Long-time political reporters and pundits (including George Will (http://abcnews.go.com/thisweek/video/roundtable-midterm-forecast-10722549&tab=9482930&section=1206874&playlist=10723105), who said "it's not a big deal" and "I don't see a thing wrong with it") have said that this kind of stuff is normal in politics.

Ken Rudin blogs (http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/05/28/127238959/this-just-in-sen-hayakawa-rejects-reagan-offer-to-drop-out-for-job):

My in-box is quickly filling up with reactions and thoughts about what to make of the Joe Sestak "drop-out-of-the-Senate-race-and-we'll-get-you-a-job" story.

The mail is split between one side saying this is a non-story because it happens all the time, and the other side reminding us that President Obama promised "transparency" and that this would not be a "politics as usual" administration.

My own view is that both points are correct. It does happen all the time — and I'll get to that in a moment. That's not the view of Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who is saying this "could be President Barack Obama's Watergate scandal." Roll Call is reporting that Issa "posited that Obama, his aides and/or his emissaries could have committed multiple felonies and questioned whether 'corruption as usual is to be excused because it’s President Obama’s administration'”:

“Karl Rove would be — right now — in pretrial confinement if he had orchestrated this sort of a deal,” Issa added.

“This is punishable by prison,” Issa said. “It is a felony, and this is exactly what President Obama campaigned against, even the appearance of. In this case, there is a huge difference between rewarding a political supporter with an ambassadorship, which is done all the time and is legal, and a quid pro quo in which you make a promise for something — illegal — or the distorting of an election.”

I'm having a hard time thinking this is "punishable by prison." But to watch the administration hem and haw about what happened, with non-answers followed by non-answers, it was, if nothing else, disappointing. And the delay only helped create more conspiracy theories.
. . .
Meanwhile, Matt Ortega, on Twitter, has unearthed an Associated Press story from 1981. Here's the first paragraph:

Sen. S.I. Hayakawa on Wednesday spurned a Reagan administration suggestion that if he drops out of the crowded Republican Senate primary race in California, President Reagan would find him a job.

Hayakawa, who was seeking a second term at the time, was being urged by GOP officials to withdraw from the 1982 primary, a race that included, among others, Reps. Barry Goldwater Jr. & Bob Dornan, San Diego Mayor Pete Wilson, and First Daughter Maureen Reagan. The last thing the White House wanted was a split-conservative field that would end in the nomination of Rep. Pete McCloskey, a longtime anathema to the Right.

[BeAChooser]

http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2010/05/30/on_sestak_v_white_house_crime_isnt_the_only_issue? page=full


The narrative on the White House's influence on the Democratic Senate Primary Race in Pennsylvania for 2010, has had a hard time getting squared. For a minimum of ten weeks Mr. Sestak ran his primary campaign on the notion that he was on the outs with the White House. He was independent. He was a man that Pennsylvanians could "trust" because he was "willing to stand up even to the President."

… snip ...

As the issue continued to be pondered in the media the questions flourished. As the White House attempted to brush under the rug, any need for an independent look into the matter, Americans began to perk up their ears on what the potential conflict might be. And as the White House promised an explanation, the same day they were lunching with President Clinton, who less than 24 hours later would be implicated in the controversy, something truly began to stink.

… snip …

Like so many careless things this President and his team have done politically, it seems the slop-job on cleaning up after the Sestak mess is getting messier than the oil spill in the gulf, and for good reasons. The story Joe Sestak told for ten weeks on the campaign trail, is very different from, the most recent report released by the White House on Friday. Pulling Bill Clinton in, one of the most well documented liars in elective political history, to be the fall guy is an easy way out. But not an explanation that seems all that credible.

As it has been examined in the past 48 hours or so even more questions begin to now emerge.

Why does the White House Memo refer to discussions--plural--if the story is that President Clinton had only one contact with Sestak?

Why doesn't the White House Memo clearly state that no job was in fact offered quid pro quo? Does not even the leaving of this large loophole in the middle of their own explanation allow them the legal room to maneuver even more if the public pressure becomes hotter rather than cooling off?

And most damning of all, if the explanation was as simple as a call from Bubba to Pennsylvania Joe, why couldn't Robert Gates have answered that question two months ago when he was asked daily for a period of weeks from the press as to the specifics of what had happened?

… snip …

The fact that Rahm Emmanuel and Bill Clinton are also attached to this story only belie the likelihood of monkey business, not the assurance of its absence. After all it was these two characters that took great delight fifteen years ago to put the legal system through tortured distortions of things like the word "is."

[leftysergeant]

The law specifies that the offer be something "of value." You lose again.

[JohnnyG]

The law specifies that the offer be something "of value." You lose again.
Are you claiming that white house advisors have no value? Well I think I finally agree with you for once. :D

[leftysergeant]

Are you claiming that white house advisors have no value? Well I think I finally agree with you for once. :D

For eight yearts they cost us money and got nothing worthwhile done.

[JohnnyG]

For eight yearts they cost us money and got nothing worthwhile done.

Eight years? I think it's more like 20.

[DJW]

Mitt Romney refused his salary as Governor. Power has value.

[Travis]

The law specifies that the offer be something "of value." You lose again.

It also says that an election has to be interfered with. I presume this means an interference that is itself illegal and against the wishes of the running candidates.

Asking someone to not run is not election interference. Even if you just straight up paid someone cash to not run that still would not be election interference.

[leftysergeant]

Eight years? I think it's more like 20.

Clinton appointed a few who got some worthwhile stuff done. The Shrub appointed corrupt overseers over them and it all reverted to the slime pit that Reagan created.