nick1985
Lifer
- Dec 29, 2002
- 27,153
- 6
- 81
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
meh. Obama is a chicago politician. this is clean politics for IL!
though unless clinton rolls on obama (won't happen) nothing is going to be done. Obama is still to popular. hell i doubt this even hurts him long term.
nick1985
Lifer
- Dec 29, 2002
- 27,153
- 6
- 81
His approval rating is in the 40's, he is not enjoying his 70% approval rating when he first got elected.
Hell, after all of the broken campaign promises and unpopular stance on just about every major issue so far, I gotta figure the only people who are still strongly supporting Obama are just the die-hards. I bet Obama could punch them in the face and take a dump on their chest and they would still strongly support him.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
haha! just watched a guy on the news claim this was a setup by OBAMA to nail clinton (hilary).
this will hurt the clinton name and hurt her chances of running and winning.
hehe this is entertaining. even though nothing is going to happen its fun to watch!
this will hurt the clinton name and hurt her chances of running and winning.
hehe this is entertaining. even though nothing is going to happen its fun to watch!
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
While it certainly sounds like illegalities ocurred, and the WH 'version' floated today doesn't add up, I don't expect much to come of it. Seems to me to proceed with prosecution etc Sestak or Romanoff would have to testify against the WH; I just don't see that happening.
Fern
Fern
Last edited:
The WH response actually reads like a confession. It kept saying while it did offer positions they weren't compensatory. Stressing the aspect that they weren't paid positions. It doesn't matter under the law, it's just that you offered a position to persuade or influence somebody running, that's illegal.
Where's the special prosecutor? We have the white house openly admitting to a crime.
Where's the special prosecutor? We have the white house openly admitting to a crime.
Patranus
Diamond Member
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
How would they get out of testifying (as they did nothing criminal as they turned down the job offers) and if they tell a different story that only raises more questions.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Who's going to make them testify? The Holder DoJ? I don't see that happening.
The Repubs don't have the votes to force a special prosecuter.
And the Repubs control no committees so I wouldn't expect any Congressional investigations.
I probably didn't word my post very well. I'm mostly just thinking that nothings going to happen unless Sestak or Romanoff want to go public against the WH.
Fern
If repubs get the house could a special prosecutor be appointed? How about getting the FBI to investigate? I mean this is a federal crime so who's jurisdiction does this fall under and what are the means to investigate and charge?
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Well, now I am inspired to run in the next democratic primary for dog catcher, and this this very thread has taught me the proper way to do it in case some other democrat should oppose me for that lofty political plum position.
Of course my first step is to consult with the local democratic leadership in my county, and ask for their support, and if any of those Turkeys have the temerity to not offer their unconditional support, I shall promptly assert my right to sue their asses under the law for daring to illegally dissuade my political ambitions. Next step will be State Governor, US congressman, Senator, and finally President.
Vote for Lemon Law for Prez, or I will sue your ass and get a Federal Prosecutor to do my heavy lifting for me.
Of course my position would better fit the GOP, who are trying to use the same tactics against Sestak and the democrats.
Of course my first step is to consult with the local democratic leadership in my county, and ask for their support, and if any of those Turkeys have the temerity to not offer their unconditional support, I shall promptly assert my right to sue their asses under the law for daring to illegally dissuade my political ambitions. Next step will be State Governor, US congressman, Senator, and finally President.
Vote for Lemon Law for Prez, or I will sue your ass and get a Federal Prosecutor to do my heavy lifting for me.
Of course my position would better fit the GOP, who are trying to use the same tactics against Sestak and the democrats.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
The FBI is under (part of) the DoJ.
Here's a handy organizational chart:
http://www.justice.gov/agencies/index-org.html
RE: Special prosecuter. I don't think the House could do that. Looks like there used to be a special prosecuter law, but it expired. Best that I can tell, the DoJ is the only place now that can request a special prosecuter.
Federal crimes are under Holder's DoJ.
Fern
boomerang
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2000
- 18,883
- 641
- 126
Just heard an interesting theory floated by a certain Mr. Gingrich. He's of the opinion that there were two conversations with Sestak. The first was with Clinton offering him an unpaid advisory board position.
The later offer was a high ranking position. So, the administration is trying to slide the original Clinton offer in front of the second offer to conceal it. When you start to analyze Sestak's words, it's a pretty compelling case.
I'll retract my original position that this is a dead issue. I think it warrants investigation and ultimately someone's head will roll over it. This should take down Emanuel. Sestak may be a casualty too.
I would LOVE to see that lying sack of shit Gibbs get caught up in the fray too.
The later offer was a high ranking position. So, the administration is trying to slide the original Clinton offer in front of the second offer to conceal it. When you start to analyze Sestak's words, it's a pretty compelling case.
I'll retract my original position that this is a dead issue. I think it warrants investigation and ultimately someone's head will roll over it. This should take down Emanuel. Sestak may be a casualty too.
I would LOVE to see that lying sack of shit Gibbs get caught up in the fray too.
Last edited:
Patranus
Diamond Member
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
Maybe they should convene a grand jury and haul ex-president Clinton into it and grill him. It was a mistake to use president Clinton as an escaped goat. If he lies to get out of it he is in trouble. If he doesnt he may be in even more trouble. This thing has legs. When you start telling lies things can get messy.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Oh Jesus , I have never seen a thread with more delusional righty tighties coming out of the woodwork like cockroaches, firmly convinced that nirvana has come.
The disappointment will only come later, when the mountain they built out of a molehill turns out to be only a molehill. By then the righty tighties will find some new excuse to go all gaga over nothing.
The disappointment will only come later, when the mountain they built out of a molehill turns out to be only a molehill. By then the righty tighties will find some new excuse to go all gaga over nothing.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,390
- 29
- 91
LOL, the Obama admin openly admits to criminal acts and LL, ever the hypocritical lefty apologist mocks the laws being broken............but believes that Bush should be jailed for criminal acts that he is sure will come to light any day now.............
What a fucking joke you are LL. You are in inspiration for generations of partisan hypocrites yet to come. Contratulations scumbag, well deserved!
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,390
- 29
- 91
Yep, unlike the lefties posting in this thread, Sestak seems to have some level of integrity. I guess that makes him a traitor to the resident lefty apologists.
Oh, please this is just pathetic.
The reality is there is plenty of evidence these laws ONLY apply to actually offering such a position to change the way someone actually votes, or potentially changing an actual vote by a Congressman. (In other words you get the position if you vote for candidate X, its not at all about whether you stay or drop out of a race. Offering a bribe to get someone appointed to a position is viewed differently, but that's also a different situation than someone choosing to drop out of a primary.) This means the action was legal period unless you can show the laws apply differently. (The main argument against would the the "political activity" mention in the first statue, but this is highly debatable and certain interpretations of that statute could simply be preposterous, such as merely an understating the individual will avoid publicly contradicting the President on policy issues while holding a prominent appointed political position would be illegal under some possible interpretations of the law.)
Regardless, to ACTUALLY get someone for bribery types charges, you need to show a very explicit quid pro quo. Merely saying Sestak could get the job if he is no longer running in a primary won't cut it, the offer needs to be explicit, and it sounds like in this case the ONLY was to theoretically prove such a thing would be if someone explicitly confesses which has not occurred in that way to this point. (Running in a primary can in fact be a complication to effectively functioning in such a position both in time constraints and due to what a primary candidate might be saying publicly, so the White House can cite a legitimate interest on making the offer contingent to Sestak dropping out of the primary.) So in other words the ONLY way to possibly successfully prosecute in this case would be if one of the involved parties is really honest, because clearly they can avoid prosecution if they deny this occurred. Its also quite questionable whether an unpaid position would really be a creditable bribe to persuade Sestak to drop out if he really was set on contesting the primary.
The even more glaring point is Bush, Clinton, and Ronald Reagan ALL made similar offers under similar circumstances without any criminal prosecutions occurring, so the outrage on this issue seems extremely selective from some quarters.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/us/30memo.html?src=mv
Basically unless new evidence surfaces showing something other than what evidence has come to light so far, criminal prosecution in this case would be highly unreasonable.
Last edited:
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Sadly I can't envision the righty tighty dreams of making this thread molehill into the next watergate ending with a bang, and instead it will simply slowly fade away, like some consumed beer can being recycled back for its value in scrap aluminum. And as the days turn into weeks, and the months turn into years, and the years turn into decades, with no single prosecutor, even GOP ones, willing to bring such a ridiculous charge, some righty tighties will still hold out some hopes that a crime exists when in fact no such crime was committed.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter