I wonder if one might infer from the White House behavior that Sestak’s job offer was made by the president or vice president?
It’s technically an impeachable offense, but there’s no way this Congress would do anything about it. Anyway, the nightmare scenario would be a president Pelosi, which wouldn’t be rectified until 2012, regardless of what happens this fall. Maybe Issa should just let sleeping dogs lie. So to speak…
If offering somebody a Cabinet post as a political deal was an impeachable offense, every President since George Washington would have been impeached.
Bribes require personal gain.
Chris, it’s not the cabinet post that makes it impeachable… it’s the political deal. You can give out jobs all you want (yes, since Washington.) What you can’t do is disenfranchise voters.
Of course you see no wrong, because the ends justifies the means, right?
What you can’t do is disenfranchise voters. So Sestak has some Sacred Duty From God to run for Senate? Or if he doesn’t run, we just don’t have a Democratic primary?
Explain please how the voters get disenfranchised.
Doesn’t matter if “it’s always been done” or not.
Here’s the text of the pertinent laws being examined in this case:
18 USC 211:
Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Whoever solicits or receives any thing of value in consideration of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States either by referring his name to an executive department or agency of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section shall not apply to such services rendered by an employment agency pursuant to the written request of an executive department or agency of the United States.
18 USC 600:
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, 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, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
On further review, I believe the real focus needs to be on the latter one, 18 USC 600. Seems to me to be saying it’s illegal to offer someone a job in return for their help getting someone else elected, be it in a primary or general election.
D’Oh!
…how the voters get disenfranchised.
If he dropped out voluntarily, no problem. If he dropped out because he was offered a deal. The deal maker is disenfranchising voters. That’s impeachable.
Your argument is that bribes don’t matter.
Accepting an Executive branch job means you can’t run for a Legislative branch position. It’s not bribery, and the concept is nonsense. It’s like offering to marry somebody in exchange for them not marrying somebody else. Of course if they accept your offer they can’t marry somebody else.
The way I read 18 USC 600 is that Sestak would have to agree to campaign for Specter, or Sestak would have had to declare his candidacy and then withdraw. Otherwise, you could never offer anybody a job in Washington.
Come on guys, it’s the Constitution we’re talking about. Chris doesn’t believe in that
“Accepting an Executive branch job means you can’t run for a Legislative branch position. It’s not bribery, and the concept is nonsense.”
A cabinet post isn’t a “thing of value”?
You’d think we were living in Chicago. Oh, wait…
Jeez Louise, what is it with the Usual Suspects around here? Even David Axelrod admitted that “were something like that to have happened” that it would be “a serious matter.” That is, if it even happened, of course.
Talk about knee-jerk Obama-Administration-right-or-wrong reponse, but not even Mr. Axelrod, the Rovian “Evil Genius” behind the Obama Presidency is going there. So I guess you guys are not in lock-step taking orders from the Obama Administration in the manner that conservatives were supposed to be getting orders from Karl Rove, because if you were taking orders, your remarks would make more sense.
The way I read…
Ok, now that you’ve isolated the problem are you willing to go the rest of the way?
Sestak would have to agree to campaign for Specter, or Sestak would have had to declare his candidacy and then withdraw.
Total fantasy (as in, making stuff up.) Where in 18 USC 600 do you read that? Clue for the clueless: Sestak is not the guilty party here (at least, not for the main point.)
Darkstar – a Senate seat isn’t “something of value?” Sestak was (is) a sitting House member. Isn’t that “something of value?”
ken anthony – I know who you think the guilty party is. But by your standard, you could never offer any job to any elected official. After all, that means that they can’t run for re-election, thus, “influencing” who gets elected.
Generally, when taking the absolute literal interpretation of something leads to a stupid result, we revise our interpretation.
…by your standard, you could never offer any job to any elected official
Now there’s a thought. But no, it’s a question of when the offer is made. During an election would be a baaaad time.
BTW, I just caught on Foxnews that fact that Nixon was impeached for obstruction… Obama has to be very careful about stonewalling or he could see the same result.
Nixon was not impeached at all. He probably would have been if he hadn’t resigned. But he also had a Congress of the opposite party. If Obama is impeached, it sure won’t happen this year.
“Generally, when
taking the absolute literal interpretation of somethingignoring the facts leads to a stupid result, we revise our interpretation.” FIFYSestak said he was offered a post in the Obama administration to drop out of the race. The value was a job for which there was no risk i.e. losing the election. I’m sure deal making like this happens during elections, we just don’t hear about it and it’s still illegal. Biden was trying to have a placeholder so his son could have his seat but he didn’t want it at the time. But when the public is slapped in the face with an obvious possibility of malfeasance and the people involved stonewall, it should be investigated. Here’s an apt analogy for you, a cop can watch a hooker going up and down the street and know she’s a hooker but can’t do anything until she turns a trick. Sestak admitted to turning the trick now we need the John. Your response to Ken is facetious on its face. There has to be a quid pro quo.
Nixon was not impeached
Oh right, that was Clinton (acquitted by senate, which is Ann Coulters main beef with FDT.)
That’s what happens when you combine my Swiss cheese memory with the constant hounding of the media (Nixon was Satan until Jr came along, right?)
One of the reasons Nixon resigned, though, was that House Judiciary had scheduled hearings on impeaching him.
The reason he resigned is that he didn’t want to be impeached/removed. He made the decision after several Republican senators, including Barry Goldwater, went to the White House and told him they wouldn’t be defending him.
During an election would be a baaaad time.
So it’s illegal to offer someone a job during an election? You’re just making stuff up. And speaking of making stuff up…
BTW, I just caught on Foxnews that fact that Nixon was impeached for obstruction
A sentence that tells you all you need to know about Ken and/or Fox News’ interest in factual accuracy.
Sestak said he was offered a post in the Obama administration to drop out of the race.
If he took a job in the administration, he’d have to drop out of the race.
The cabinet is full of people (Clinton, Salazar, Napolitano, Sebellius) who were previously in elected office, and expected to run for re-election. Is it a crime that they took jobs in the administration, and dropped out of those races? Was it a crime for Obama to offer Judd Gregg the post of Commerce Secretary, offering him a job in exchange for his leaving the Senate, and thereby depriving the people of New Hampshire of their elected Senator?
If this is the best you can do for an Obama scandal, his must be the cleanest administration in history.
No, none of those were crimes, Jim. But since you’re being more obtuse than usual, I’ll explain.
Phone conversation one:
Rahm: Joe! How ya doin’?
Joe: OK, Rahm, how about you?
Rahm: Great. Say, how’d you like to be Secretary of the Navy? The president thinks you’d be great for the job.
Joe: That sounds kind of cool, but you know, I have a job as Congressman, and besides, I’d like to run for the Senate.
Rahm: Oh, OK. I understand. Guess we’ll just have to ask someone else.
Conversation two:
Rahm: Joe! How ya doin’?
Joe: OK, Rahm, how about you?
Rahm: Great. Say, I hear you’re running against Specter in the primary.
Joe: Why yes, Rahm, I am.
Rahm: You know, if you’d drop out, the president would make you Secretary of the Navy.
One of these is not a crime. The other potentially is.
Bribes require personal gain.
A $200,000 / yr cabinet post isn’t “personal gain”?
“A sentence that tells you all you need to know about Ken and/or Fox News’ interest in factual accuracy.”
I’ve got a better one for ya. “Fake but accurate.”
Rand writes:
“One of these is not a crime. The other potentially is.”
That’s what I don’t get. The two offers are identical in terms of the benefit to Sestak and the consequences if accepted. Why would anyone with a reasonable sense of self preservation make the second offer when the first one does the job just as well with no legal risk?
No, they’re not identical. The first one is not explicitly contingent on him not running for the Senate. It is an unqualified offer of a job. The intent is to make him Navy Secretary, not have him take a fall in the primary.
The legal problem for the White House is that it must have been door number two, or Sestak wouldn’t have said what he said. That’s their conundrum. It is, of course, a bigger legal problem if one substitutes “Mr. President” for “Rahm…”
As for why they would do the second as opposed to the first, it’s “the Chicago way…”
The first one is not explicitly contingent on him not running for the Senate.
It is legally contingent. Sestak can’t run for the Senate as Secretary of the Navy, as the Hatch Act prohibits a federal employee from being a candidate for nomination or election to a partisan political office. The two offers are substantively, and legally, the same — and neither is a crime.
[Of course Sestak wasn’t offered the job of Secretary of the Navy; Obama had appointed Ray Mabus to that job before Specter switched parties.]
The legal problem for the White House is that it must have been door number two, or Sestak wouldn’t have said what he said.
LOL. I hate to tell you this Rand, but in the real world a “legal problem” requires something more than your wishful thinking. The notion that the president or vice-president could conceivably be impeached on the basis of an incorrectly worded job offer is fantastical even for you.
LOL. I hate to tell you this Rand, but in the real world a “legal problem” requires something more than your wishful thinking. The notion that the president or vice-president could conceivably be impeached on the basis of an incorrectly worded job offer is fantastical even for you.
Why do you hate to tell me that? I think that you love to do so.
Anyway, I have no desire for either of them to be impeached (well, OK, I would like to see them impeached, but not removed, because of the horrific alternative). I was just explaining the law to morons. You know, “quid pro quo”? As in many crimes, it’s all about intent.
Oh, forgot this stupid thing. LOL.
“LOL. I hate to tell you this Rand, but in the real world a “legal problem” requires something more than your wishful thinking. ”
I guess David Axelrod engaged in such risible thinking upon admitting that if the conversation with Mr. Sestak had taken place along such lines that there would be legal trouble.
LOL. Ha, ha, ha. David Axelrod is such a drole person.
It still doesn’t compute. If Sestak is offered the job of Navy Secretary and accepts, how, as a practical matter, can he continue to campaign for a job in the Senate?
And if Specter can’t win the Democratic primary fairly, why would the White House want him to be the candidate in the general election? If he can’t get half of the Democratic vote, he needed, approximately, more than half of the Republican vote. Which seems unlikely.
Uh oh! Jim is confused as usual.
Quick, call him a Rhambulance!
It still doesn’t compute. If Sestak is offered the job of Navy Secretary and accepts, how, as a practical matter, can he continue to campaign for a job in the Senate?
Again, you miss the point. The law is about intent, not result.
Just as the difference between manslaughter and first-degree murder.
…all you need to know about Ken and/or Fox News’ interest in factual accuracy.
Someone on Fox may have misspoke (it could have been a lefty, they actually allow them on a fair and balanced news network) or I could have misheard. It happens. Since it’s all YOU need to know, it tells me a lot about you.
Is it a crime that they took jobs…
Since you already know it isn’t and have repeatedly been told the crime is the intent of the person offering [not taking] the job… you are either stupid, or intentionally trying to mislead.
So which is it? Are you stupid or just a liar? I’m sorry, perhaps a third option… you’re a stupid liar.
I’m not calling you names btw, just need some clarification.
Bill Clinton made the offer (got that on Fox, Jim.)
You know, “quid pro quo”?
There is no quid pro quo when the quid is the quo. [And now the White House says, and Sestak agrees, that the “job” in question was an unpaid position on a board.]
The law is about intent, not result.
First you say it’s about the wording. Now it’s about the intent — which was doubtless there in the Gregg case, as well as hundreds of other cases in recent history.
Face it: offering someone a job (or an unpaid position on a board) in order to avoid a primary fight is not a crime.
Certain actions that affect the outcome of elections are crimes. Bribery is one of those actions. Jim disagrees. We’re done.
First you say it’s about the wording. Now it’s about the intent
Why do you think these two are exclusive? Let’s actually look at the law here.
It might not have been illegal merely because Sestak wasn’t yet a “public official” (there might be other law covering that possibility), but intent is clearly part of the wording of the law.
I couldn’t remember what Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon for so went to Wikipedia… immunizing [Nixon] from prosecution for any crimes he had “committed or may have committed or taken part in” In order to put the whole thing finally to rest.
Then came across this little bit… Nixon considered, pardon himself and then resign.
If a president can pardon themselves, can they do any mischief and get away with it?