Developing~ Sestak Says He was Offered Job To Not Challenge Specters Senate Seat

[CallMeJoe]

Voting is also attempting to influence an election. I guess all voters are criminals. How about you read the actual laws and prove that they were broken? Or is that too hard?

Take spidey's posts with a grain of salt. He was ready to impeach President Obama before he was even inaugurated...

 

[Aegeon]

The crime isn't a bribe, that's how the white house is spinning it. The crime is attempting to enfluence an election. That's why it doesn't matter what the position was or if it was even paid. They've admitted to a federal crime.

As stated that's just stupidly dumb.

Obviously it is quite legal for Obama to attempt to influence an election, and there are a wide array of indisputably legal ways for him to attempt to do so.

The only question AT ALL is whether offering a federal position to persuade someone to drop out of a primary can be a violation of the law. Since the law was clearly primarily directed at attempting to influence how someone actually votes in an election, (i.e. you get the federal job if you vote for Specter in the Primary) or say how a Congressman votes on a particular issue, its not clear if its possible for the Obama administration to violate the laws in question period no matter how the offer was made. Choosing to drop out of a race is simply a different situation and its clearly debatable if the laws in question possibly apply at all.

Furthermore the laws as written are DEFINITELY about bribery if they actually apply in this case. They require an explicit quid pro quo to occur in the communications in order for the law to be violated. Otherwise you would be looking at a law barring the President from making an offer of a job to a politician whenever he is running in a primary of general election, and this is obviously not the case at all. (There are plenty of times Presidents make legitimate job offers without being motivated by influencing the outcome of an election, other than the obvious motivation of getting re-elected as President of course. You would also potentially be creating prosecutions based on assumed thought crimes where a prosecutor merely has to argue that the President must have been motivated by politics to make that particular offer, even though the prosecutor lacks specific evidence of this.)

 

[pcgeek11]

As stated that's just stupidly dumb.

Obviously it is quite legal for Obama to attempt to influence an election, and there are a wide array of indisputably legal ways for him to attempt to do so.

The only question AT ALL is whether offering a federal position to persuade someone to drop out of a primary can be a violation of the law. Since the law was clearly primarily directed at attempting to influence how someone actually votes in an election, (i.e. you get the federal job if you vote for Specter in the Primary) or say how a Congressman votes on a particular issue, its not clear if its possible for the Obama administration to violate the laws in question period no matter how the offer was made. Choosing to drop out of a race is simply a different situation and its clearly debatable if the laws in question possibly apply at all.

Furthermore the laws as written are DEFINITELY about bribery if they actually apply in this case. They require an explicit quid pro quo to occur in the communications in order for the law to be violated. Otherwise you would be looking at a law barring the President from making an offer of a job to a politician whenever he is running in a primary of general election, and this is obviously not the case at all. (There are plenty of times Presidents make legitimate job offers without being motivated by influencing the outcome of an election, other than the obvious motivation of getting re-elected as President of course. You would also potentially be creating prosecutions based on assumed thought crimes where a prosecutor merely has to argue that the President must have been motivated by politics to make that particular offer, even though the prosecutor lacks specific evidence of this.)

How could a president offer enough jobs to voters to effect the outcome of an election. The law is clear, it was broken. Period.

 

[Sclamoz]

How could a president offer enough jobs to voters to effect the outcome of an election. The law is clear, it was broken. Period.

Can you find a legal expert with that opinion? According to Bush's ethics officer:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pl...ethics_chief_to_gop_time.html?wprss=plum-line

Painter, however, dismissed the "scandal." He made two points. First, he said, now that we know the "job" was an unpaid advisory position, it's even less likely that this was intended as a quid pro quo.

"Where is the quid pro quo?" Painter asked. "Nobody who has a halfway decent chance of winning a Senate race is going to give it up to sit on an advisory board. That would be a laughable tradeoff."

Painter also took issue with the notion that the version of events aired by the White House today could in any way be illegal. Republicans point to a Federal statute that prohibits any promises of "employment" as a "reward for any political activity."

But Painter says applying this to the Sestak situation is a big stretch. He argued that the sort of "political activity" referred to in the statute concerns political activity you might do for someone else, not actions you might take on your own behalf, such as dropping out of a race.

For instance, he said, this statute prevents things like the offer of a job to someone in exchange for their support for a particular candidate. "I cannot see how this statute can be reasonably applied to a candidate's own decision on whether to run in an election," Painter said.

"Based on the information disclosed from the White House, it's even more apparent that this is a non issue," Painter said. "No scandal. Time to move on."

 

[PJABBER]

Without an independent inquiry all we have are a couple of statements not made under oath.

When someone lies they can actually be telling the truth. It is called a lie of omission.

However unlikely, Sestak could have had a discussion with Clinton about an unpaid board seat. Based on the way he described it when this thing broke (offered a high level job,) the probability is that wasn't all that was discussed.

Until the parties are put under oath, they can put out a partial truth and hope it all goes away real soon now.

Ask Clinton, he knows.

 

[her209]

It depends... the White House's version of the story is that it offered the job to Sestak because it believed Sestak's campaign efforts were in vain, i.e., they never thought Sestak would win the primary.

 

[Sclamoz]

Without an independent inquiry all we have are a couple of statements not made under oath.

When someone lies they can actually be telling the truth. It is called the lie of omission.

However unlikely, Sestak could have had a discussion with Clinton about an unpaid board seat. Based on the way he described it when this thing broke (offered a high level job,) the probability is that wasn't all that was discussed.

Until the parties are put under oath, they can put out a partial truth and hope it all goes away real soon now.

Ask Clinton, he knows.

Or like when they put the gipper on trial right?

http://twitpic.com/1ruq64

There isn't a crime here you nutjobs. Paid or unpaid it makes no difference.

But Painter says applying this to the Sestak situation is a big stretch. He argued that the sort of "political activity" referred to in the statute concerns political activity you might do for someone else, not actions you might take on your own behalf, such as dropping out of a race.

For instance, he said, this statute prevents things like the offer of a job to someone in exchange for their support for a particular candidate. "I cannot see how this statute can be reasonably applied to a candidate's own decision on whether to run in an election," Painter said.

This isn't the what these laws are for, your just twisting them to fit your political views.

 

[Aegeon]

How could a president offer enough jobs to voters to effect the outcome of an election. The law is clear, it was broken. Period.

Frankly you're just basically making up bogus laws as stated at this point. It clearly is highly questionable whether the law was could even possibly broken on this sort of matter, and that's what those who ACTUALLY understand the laws have stated on the matter.

The law INDISPUTABLY primarily directed about what I was just talking about. While it might be tough to actually alter an election that way with direct votes, offering a desirable enough government job in return for a high profile endorsement from a media figure for instance might actually alter the outcome and is covered by the law. It also would presumably apply to bribing a Presidential Elector for instance.

Regardless, the idea you can have an effective investigation of the matter barring significant new evidence surfacing is actually pretty silly. The ONLY way an investigation could possibly lead to charges without something like a recording of the conversation surfacing would be if one of the directly involved parties is honest enough to admit there was an explicit quid pro quo, so if you believe its impossible Bill Clinton could possibly lie about anything under oath, I suppose a further investigation of that type would be productive. Sestak doesn't really have to take any risk at all to avoid incriminating someone under oath, all he has to say is he doesn't remember if the offer was made in a way to convey a quid pro quo, but he assumes it was not.

Frankly a number in this thread and elsewhere are not acting reasonably about this matter, especially given they have not addressed why it should be treated different than quite similar situations under Bush and Reagan for instance.

 

[pcgeek11]

Painter, however, dismissed the "scandal." He made two points. First, he said, now that we know the "job" was an unpaid advisory position, it's even less likely that this was intended as a quid pro quo.

"Where is the quid pro quo?" Painter asked. "Nobody who has a halfway decent chance of winning a Senate race is going to give it up to sit on an advisory board. That would be a laughable tradeoff."

Painter also took issue with the notion that the 1.) version of events aired by the White House today could in any way be illegal. Republicans point to a Federal statute that prohibits any promises of "employment" as a "reward for any political activity."

But Painter says applying this to the Sestak situation is a big stretch. He argued that the sort of "political activity" referred to in the 2.) statute concerns political activity you might do for someone else, not actions you might take on your own behalf, such as dropping out of a race.

For instance, he said, this statute prevents things like the offer of a job to someone in exchange for their support for a particular candidate. "I cannot see how this statute can be reasonably applied to a candidate's own decision on whether to run in an election," Painter said.

3.) "Based on the information disclosed from the White House, it's even more apparent that this is a non issue," Painter said. "No scandal. Time to move on."

1.) Assuming the version from the white house is accurate correct and the full truth. BS
2.) Opinion, The law doesn't state that.
3.) See # 01 above.

Do you really think the white house stated the entire chain of events? The aroma of fish is too strong around this issue. Look at the video of Sestaks original statements. Then his refusal to tell any facts, then the meetings at the white house with Clinton Sestak and others the day before the announcement of "what happened" ( lets all get our story straight). Then Sestak opens up about the conversation between Clinton and him. Why did they get Clinton involved?

Hmmmm, I wonder.

 

[Aegeon]

2.) Opinion, The law doesn't state that.

A plain reading of the law and the circumstances under which it was created makes it quite clear that's definitely what it was directed at primarily. Again choosing to drop out of a race is a very different situation than simply agreeing to vote for someone or publicly giving them political support. Its also extremely clear Presidents in the past have made offers with the intent of altering future elections by taking someone out of the running in a wide variety of cases.

I take opinions from lawyers, especially those whom if anything would be expect to be biased for Republicans on this issue if anything, as more creditable than your personal opinion.

Regardless its VERY clear the law ONLY applies in cases of explicit quid pro quo at most in this situation. Otherwise the law would just be a nightmare which would be enforced in all sorts of circumstances, yet it clearly absolutely never has been.

 

[pcgeek11]

1.) Frankly you're just basically making up bogus laws as stated at this point.
No I mad nothing up at all. Go read the laws ( as there are more than one that may apply ). They clearly state offering of jobs, positions etc to effect the outcome of an election is illegal. It says nothing about the payment for this job or a lack of payment.

It clearly is highly questionable whether the law was could even possibly broken on this sort of matter, and that's what those who ACTUALLY understand the laws have stated on the matter.

Depends of which " expert" you listen to, I have heard both sides of the arguments and read the laws and they seem pretty clear to me. The law was in fact broken IMO.

The law INDISPUTABLY primarily directed about what I was just talking about. While it might be tough to actually alter an election that way with direct votes, offering a desirable enough government job in return for a high profile endorsement from a media figure for instance might actually alter the outcome and is covered by the law. It also would presumably apply to bribing a Presidential Elector for instance.

Neither of these are specifically outlined in the written law. All it says is:

Title 18, U.S.C. Section 595, which says, “Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States … uses his official authority for the purposes of interfering with, or affecting the nomination of, or the election of any candidate for office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representative…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

and

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 600, which says, “Whoever directly or indirectly promises any employment position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, in favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

Seems pretty clear to me. Position offered in consideration for Sestak to drop out of the primary that would obviously effect the outcome of the primary election.

 

[theeedude]

Neither of these are specifically outlined in the written law. All it says is:

Title 18, U.S.C. Section 595, which says, “Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States … uses his official authority for the purposes of interfering with, or affecting the nomination of, or the election of any candidate for office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representative…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

and

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 600, which says, “Whoever directly or indirectly promises any employment position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, in favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

Seems pretty clear to me. Position offered in consideration for Sestak to drop out of the primary that would obviously effect the outcome of the primary election.

Burden of proof is on YOU that the position was offered for him "as a reward" for dropping out of the primary, and not just offered to him because he's a good fit for the position. Please provide proof thereof. Kthnks

P.S. "Seems pretty clear to me" is not proof

 

[CallMeJoe]

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 600, which says, “Whoever directly or indirectly promises any employment position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, in favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

Seems pretty clear to me. Position offered in consideration for Sestak to drop out of the primary that would obviously effect the outcome of the primary election.

Was the advisory board position offered to Rep. Sestak created by act of Congress?

 

[theeedude]

Here's a little hint for Republicans, the country is not entirely happy with Democrats, all you need to do is demonstrate the opposite of what you clearly demonstrated from 2000-2006, you know maybe some indication that you can actually govern when given a chance

Instead you are demonstrating that you can engage in petty attacks on a Democrat president. Guess what, Americans already knew that from Clinton years, and still threw you out in 2006 and 2008.

 

[Jaskalas]

Instead you are demonstrating that you can engage in petty attacks on a Democrat president. Guess what, Americans already knew that from Clinton years, and still threw you out in 2006 and 2008.

Seemed to work in 2000.

 

[Aegeon]

Neither of these are specifically outlined in the written law.

You frankly clearly can't interpret laws properly because its clearly spelled out EXACTLY UNDER WHAT YOU PUT IN BOLD STARTING WITH "TO ANY PERSON". (Obviously talk to a lawyer if you ever have serious legal questions rather than make a decision on your own.)

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 600, which says, “Whoever directly or indirectly promises any employment position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, in favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

This VERY CLEARLY would include political actions such as a prominent media figure engaging in political activity by making an endorsement of a candidate. The elector voting for a specific candidate in return for a job or other government compensation would also clearly fall under this statement. (Voting for someone is very clearly a political activity for the support of a specific candidate.)

By contrast, it isn't anywhere near remotely as clear choosing to drop out of a race is covered by the "political activity" provision or the others you mentioned. A decision not to pursue a race is clearly a different sort of action than the others covered.

A big issue you're missing is that when interpreting how a law can be applied, looking at the history of what legislators were reacting to and what they had in mind when writing it can be considered rather than some literal reading of the law without considering this background at all, especially concerning a potentially vague provision. Its very clear the historical problem was with other activities such as actual votes, or public support such as a major newspaper's endorsement. Concerns about someone choosing to drop out a race due to a job offer definitely were not brought up.

When you add in the fact the law has never been applied the way you are now advocating, that brings into great question whether the law can actually be applied that way at all.

 

[theeedude]

Seemed to work in 2000.

Not so much in 1998 right after the impeachment.

 

[pcgeek11]

Was the advisory board position offered to Rep. Sestak created by act of Congress?

Not by congress, but you forgot to read the OR part...

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 600, which says, “Whoever directly or indirectly promises any employment position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, in favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

Seems pretty clear to me. Position offered in consideration for Sestak to drop out of the primary that would obviously effect the outcome of the primary election.

 

[pcgeek11]

This VERY CLEARLY would include political actions such as a prominent media figure engaging in political activity by making an endorsement of a candidate. The elector voting for a specific candidate in return for a job or other government compensation would also clearly fall under this statement. (Voting for someone is very clearly a political activity for the support of a specific candidate.)

You are correct it does more or less spell out what you stated, however it also spells out what I am saying also.

I really do not see how much clearer it could be:

1.) The white House stated that they asked via Bill Clinton if Sestak would consider dropping out of the primary to allow Specter to run unopposed.

2.) This would effect the primary election by his dropping out.

3.) This was done at the request of Rahm for the President.

4.) Clinton confirmed the above, and looked very uncomfortable when he did.

5.) Sestak also confirmed this.

Position was offered as a request for Sestak to remove himself from a primary election, this would alter the election. The White House stated this as facts. Where is the argument?

The White House statement also raises many questions on its own.

1. Why did they have Bill Clinton ask instead of having Rahm or Obama?

2. Why was Sestak so tight lipped after he stated he was offered a " High Level Job " by the White House and he had turned it down. Then after the big meeting a day before the WH response he has been echoing the WH response verbatum.

3. What other conversations have taken place between Sestak and the WH?

 

[theeedude]

Not by congress, but you forgot to read the OR part...

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 600, which says, “Whoever directly or indirectly promises any employment position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, in favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

Seems pretty clear to me. Position offered in consideration for Sestak to drop out of the primary that would obviously effect the outcome of the primary election.

Was it general election? No, it was a primary. Was it special election? Was Sestak running to replace a dead Senator? No, it was a primary election. Was he running for a political office in that particular election. No, he was running to be a candidate, which is not a political office in itself. So anyone with reading comprehension of a 10th grader, which is obviously too high of a standard for any conservative, should be able to see that this law was not applicable to this election.

 

[Aegeon]

I really do not see how much clearer it could be

Again, there are clearly a wide variety of ways its definitely legal for a President to attempt to alter the election. It may not matter how explicit the offer, the action was legal because the law is not actually intended to cover someone choosing to drop out of a race, which is different than endorsing or voting for someone.

Regardless, it extremely clear the relevant law for this situation is going to require at a minimum an effective explicit quid pro quo for it to be possibly actually violated, under these particular circumstances. There would in fact be massive problems with the kind of interpretation you're suggesting since you could argue all the time that the President has influencing a future election as one motivation when offering someone a job. (But clearly when similar circumstances occurred under Bush and Reagan for instance, no criminal prosecution occurred.)

 

[pcgeek11]

Was it general election? No, it was a primary. Was it special election? Was Sestak running to replace a dead Senator? No, it was a primary election. Was he running for a political office in that particular election. No, he was running to be a candidate, which is not a political office in itself. So anyone with reading comprehension of a 10th grader, which is obviously too high of a standard for any conservative, should be able to see that this law was not applicable to this election.

So we are going to resort again to name calling and degradation...

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 600, which says, “Whoever directly OR indirectly promises any employment position, compensation, contract, appointment, OR other benefit provided for OR made possible in whole OR in part by any Act of Congress, OR any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, in favor, OR reward for any political activity OR for the support of OR opposition to any candidate OR any political party in connection with any general OR special election to any political office … shall be fined under this title OR imprisoned not more than one year, OR both.”

It seems the word or escapes you for some reason.

 

[theeedude]

So we are going to resort again to name calling and degradation...

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 600, which says, “Whoever directly OR indirectly promises any employment position, compensation, contract, appointment, OR other benefit provided for OR made possible in whole OR in part by any Act of Congress, OR any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, in favor, OR reward for any political activity OR for the support of OR opposition to any candidate OR any political party in connection with any general OR special election to any political office … shall be fined under this title OR imprisoned not more than one year, OR both.”

It seems the word or escapes you for some reason.

So by your conservative "logic," if you are "in opposition of any candidate" you can go to jail for one year, even if you don't do anything? I mean it is one of the things listed between ORs.
Aside from demonstrating that you are incapable of grasping the structure of a sentence, what is your post intended to accomplish?
OR OR OR stuff before "in connection with" has to be in connection with a general or special election. There is a reason it explicitly specifies a general or special election. If it was intended for a primary election as well, it would be enumerated or general or special would not have been specified at all.
Anyways, please post some of your other "readings" of the statute, it is good for a nice laugh with a nice glass of Tempranillo

 

[umbrella39]

This thread delivers a lot of future broken hearts...

 

[CallMeJoe]

Not by congress, but you forgot to read the OR part...

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 600, which says, “
Whoever directly or indirectly promises any employment position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, in favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

Seems pretty clear to me. Position offered in consideration for Sestak to drop out of the primary that would obviously effect the outcome of the primary election.

I read the "OR" part just fine; you incorrectly parsed the sentence.