Judiciary committee Republicans: It’s time for the DOJ to investigate Sestak’s job offer

posted at 6:25 pm on May 26, 2010 by Allahpundit

To my great surprise, looks like one politician bribing another actually might be illegal.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder today, all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee “urge the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Congressman Joe Sestak’s claim that a White House official offered him a job to induce him to exit the Pennsylvania Senate primary race against Senator Arlen Specter.”

The seven – Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Jon Kyl or Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma – allege that the offer would appear to violate federal criminal laws, including 18 U.S.C. 600, which prohibits promising a government position “as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity” or “in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office.”…

[The seven] wrote to Holder that they “do not believe the Department of Justice can properly defer to White House lawyers to investigate a matter that could involve ‘a serious breach of the law.’ The White House cannot possibly manage an internal investigation of potential criminal misconduct while simultaneously crafting a public narrative to rebut the claim that misconduct occurred.”

Darrell Issa, who started the drum-beating about this, is calling it Obama’s Watergate and potential grounds for impeachment, and went as far this week as to threaten Sestak with an ethics complaint if he doesn’t come clean. Here’s the key federal statute, although it’s not the only one in play potentially: Karl Rove cited three criminal provisions on Monday night that could conceivably have been violated.

Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political
activity

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.

The defense, I assume, will be that no job was explicitly “promised,” just sort of hinted at in order to preserve plausible deniability. E.g., “Gee, Joe, it’s a shame you’re running for Senate. We were thinking about you for Secretary of the Navy in two years.” Granted, that sounds like an indirect promise, but since all parties concerned are now aligned politically and probably were smart enough to conduct this negotiation through non-recorded means, I don’t know how we’ll ever find a smoking gun. And like Byron York, I don’t know how anyone expects The One to sign off on a special prosecutor when the GOP momentarily has no congressional leverage over him. The only way that’s happening is if the media starts bulldogging him five months out from an election that’s already threatening Democratic control of Congress. How lucky do you feel?

Exit question: Assuming something happens here, who’ll be taking the fall for The One and Axelrod?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Gibbs:

“I’m told that whatever conversations have been had are not problematic.”

Who told you?
Did the conversations include an offer of the office of Navy Secretary?
Who had these conversations?
How many conversations were there?
And who investigated these conversations and certified them as non-criminal–White House counsel John Dean and Atty. Gen. John Mitchell?

Noel on May 26, 2010 at 7:28 PM

Hate to say it but it looks like Reagan did this also with no criminal or political fallout. They were pretty open about it also.

Hayakawa spurns job offer.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 7:28 PM

What did Obama know, and when did he know it?

John the Libertarian on May 26, 2010 at 6:27 PM

Sorry John, are you talking generalities or specifics?

Either way, try this: He knows, “Grass is green,” “Presidentin’ is hard” and, “You don’t p*ss off Michelle.”

He doesn’t know: “Why my picture isn’t on every piece of currancy in circulation today,” “Why the United States hasn’t been renamed, Obamanation,” and, (rim shot)”Why we can’t introduce a resolution in congress saying I get to get a really cool ring, and everyone needs to kiss it.”

Chewy the Lab on May 26, 2010 at 7:28 PM

Scroll down a few posts on that thread and you can see the offending quote, quoted by another. Piss be upon him/her (happyfeet).

Monica on May 26, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Thanks! It really was a twisted person.

bluemarlin on May 26, 2010 at 7:32 PM

I wonder why some bannings are announced while others are done on the qt?

Joe Bloggs on May 26, 2010 at 7:20 PM

Some blog owners are more professional than others. If I were a blog/business owner, and if someone did something egregious, I’d make a public statement.

If you want a full frontal view public banishments and bannings, may I respectfully direct you to the desert f/k/a LFG? (Yes, I did that intentionally)… we don’t want to drive traffic to a dried up pony tailed hermit who banished his achievements and relevence, and devolved himself into publishing comic book finds, global warming confirmations, atheist studies and the advocation of various and off the wall sundry thoughts and serious pontifications of nothingness.

/Kelsey Grammer, Star of Frasier

Key West Reader on May 26, 2010 at 7:32 PM

A Daily Kos thread reminded me that this may not be the first time with this administration. Apparently the same thing happened in Colorado for Bennet’s seat.

The Denver Post reports the White House offered Andrew Romanoff (D) a possible job in the administration to get him to back off his primary challenge of Sen. Michael Bennet (D).

Sorry if this is a repeat or well known at this point.

LastRick on May 26, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Hmmm…

Chicago style union goon thug politics filled with payoffs, graft, and greed could possibly be illegal.

… Who knew?

Seven Percent Solution on May 26, 2010 at 7:34 PM

You would think this issue would of tipped the impeachment proceedings…and imagine the damage we could of avoided…

Conservative Voice on May 26, 2010 at 7:36 PM

William Amos on May 26, 2010 at 6:38 PM

excuse me? sillyness? it`s the frikkin law! AND if it was someone from the right side of the aisle everyone, the media/that scrag pelosi and her minions the lefty blogs would allll bes screaming for “justice”. Sillyness…I think NOT, NO QUARTER…EVER.

NY Conservative on May 26, 2010 at 7:36 PM

bluemarlin on May 26, 2010 at 7:18 PM

Key West Reader on May 26, 2010 at 7:20 PM

Sigh, not happy chit, but we can deal with it all.

I know you aren’t, and I’m not either, wishing he will step down. I just believe he’s so flippin’ incompetent, he will have no choice, at some point. No cause for celebration either way, just scary chit and a huge reason to push the reset button and take the country back (peacefully!!!!)…IMO

Chewy the Lab on May 26, 2010 at 7:39 PM

‘we can give them the gunsel, if you think he can be rigged for the part”.

DrW on May 26, 2010 at 7:39 PM

seriousness of the charge…seriousness of the charge…seriousness of the charge…seriousness of the charge…

winston on May 26, 2010 at 7:40 PM

Re: Hayakawa

Big difference in saying “I’d like to hire that guy next year if he’s not working then.” and “I’ll hire him if he quits his job now.” And no direct offer was made to him.

Noel on May 26, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Joe Sestak Embarassed for Not Answering Direct Question on White House Bribe Charges

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yWOvox406Y&feature=related

======
======

AG Eric Holder Knew About Alleged White House Sestak Bribe…And Did Nothing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn-cx-B5zA0&feature=channel

=======

=======

Senate Judiciary Republicans Join Issa’s Call for Truth in Sestak vs. the White House

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OADr77SkAwQ&feature=channel

canopfor on May 26, 2010 at 7:44 PM

I wonder why some bannings are announced while others are done on the qt?

Joe Bloggs on May 26, 2010 at 7:20 PM

I’m wondering (Not really, just have to say, “I’m wondering,”)why some posters can use the
A,B, and C word in multiple posts on a single thread (and the “Powers that be” don’t become alarmed), while another poster gets banned for sayin’ sumpin’ like, “If things don’t change, our country is heading for a revolooshin and people are going to get chot.”

Chewy the Lab on May 26, 2010 at 7:46 PM

Re: Hayakawa

Big difference in saying “I’d like to hire that guy next year if he’s not working then.” and “I’ll hire him if he quits his job now.” And no direct offer was made to him.

Noel on May 26, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Another thought is when were these particular laws amended, it looks like they were last amended in 2009. Did they apply when Reagan was in office or were they amended afterward? I don`t know the answer….

bluemarlin on May 26, 2010 at 7:49 PM

To be honest:

If the imp peach lever is pulled, I prefer it to be due to something for which there is DNA and/or videotape. The Left spun Clinton’s perjury to escape liability for sexual harassment into Republicans trying to outlaw BJs. I want this to be un-spinnable. U-G-L-Y, where he ain’t got no alibi.

Just my opinion

Sekhmet on May 26, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Big difference in saying “I’d like to hire that guy next year if he’s not working then.” and “I’ll hire him if he quits his job now.” And no direct offer was made to him.

The law says to “directly or indirectly, promises any employment”. Seems what Reagan did is the same to me. Only difference is Hayakawa eventually didn’t seek re-election so it probably didn’t garner much interest from anybody.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 7:51 PM

bluemarlin on May 26, 2010 at 7:49 PM

That’s the first thing I thought but the language is pretty much the same since 1972.

18 Sec. 600

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 7:54 PM

So happyfeet has gone to the great foot-bath in the sky.

Can’t say I am surprised. Seemed like had a real bad case of toenail fungus.

Or something worse.

Lily on May 26, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Squid Pro Quo

ted c on May 26, 2010 at 8:13 PM

And who investigated these conversations and certified them as non-criminal–White House counsel John Dean and Atty. Gen. John Mitchell?

Neither, I forget his name, Bob somebody white house cunsel, Anita Dunn’s husband. AT has an article with the whole run down.

Archimedes on May 26, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Hate to say it but it looks like Reagan did this also with no criminal or political fallout. They were pretty open about it also.
Hayakawa spurns job offer.
lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 7:28 PM

Yeah, but the part where Hayakawa says “I have not contacted the White House…and they have not been in contact with me” makes it a little different.

WarEagle01 on May 26, 2010 at 8:23 PM

Dude! If Obama is impeached that means we will have Joe Biden for President. He will stumble over the end table in the WH, fall on the suitcase that holds the nuclear button, push the button and oops, everybody’s dead.

He won’t mean to…it will be an accident.

Seriously, do we really want to create more instability in our country with an impeachment trial that he would win anyway, cuz republicans are racist and Rush Limbaugh wants him to fail and we can’t let Rush win?

ramrants on May 26, 2010 at 8:45 PM

Assuming something happens here, who’ll be taking the fall for The One and Axelrod?

Barry, Rahmbo or the Axe – One of the three is dirty on this.

Me thinks if there were an assistant or deputy something or other involved they would have been outed, roundly rebuked and thrown under the Barry Bus by now. This one is going to ring the bell.

swede7 on May 26, 2010 at 8:45 PM

Yeah, but the part where Hayakawa says “I have not contacted the White House…and they have not been in contact with me” makes it a little different.

WarEagle01 on May 26, 2010 at 8:23 PM

Different yes but still illegal. The code is pretty clear. I don’t know why nobody raised any objections back in 1981 but it certainly gives the Dems the double standard out if the Republicans try to make a big deal out of this. William Amos may be right, we may be opening a can of worms with this.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 8:51 PM

The only way that’s happening is if the media starts bulldogging him five months out from an election that’s already threatening Democratic control of Congress.

Why this segways beautifuly with the Blago pay-to-play for Obama’s senate seat court case starting next month. I wonder if Blago’s lawyers might persuade the judge to get Obama to testify now? Mmmm. Mmmm. Mmmm.

TN Mom on May 26, 2010 at 8:58 PM

Sestak is Berger’s man and Berger is a Clinton loyalist. Sestak didn’t have volunteer this info about the job, but he did. Any chance that this a set up, payback from the Clinton camp who were righteously PO’ed bing laqbled racist and all the rset during the campaign. Is Hilly seting up for a run in 12?

Just a stream of thought.

Archimedes on May 26, 2010 at 9:01 PM

using the previous precedent matters not. What matters is the law and if it has been violated. If it has, then it should be investigated. We don’t just look the other way because of something that happened in the 80′s. If that’s how law works then all the judge would have to do is ask, “hey, what’d we do last time with this?”

Investigate

apply the law

use the Constitution

ted c on May 26, 2010 at 9:03 PM

Assuming something happens here, who’ll be taking the fall for The One and Axelrod?

Rahm Emanuel.

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Sestak is Berger’s man and Berger is a Clinton loyalist. Sestak didn’t have volunteer this info about the job, but he did. Any chance that this a set up, payback from the Clinton camp who were righteously PO’ed bing laqbled racist and all the rset during the campaign. Is Hilly seting up for a run in 12?

Just a stream of thought.

Archimedes on May 26, 2010 at 9:01 PM

yeah, we discussed that the other night and felt that Sestak’s allegation may have been a shot from the USS H.R Clinton toward the SS Obama’s rudder.

Hard to see how it turns out, but the time that Sestak is going to have to spend on this is likely going to eclipse the time needed to run for Senate in PA, IMO.

ted c on May 26, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Hate to say it but it looks like Reagan did this also with no criminal or political fallout. They were pretty open about it also.

Hayakawa spurns job offer.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 7:28 PM

Can we quit this childish game???
People like you are the reason we get more of the same.

CWforFreedom on May 26, 2010 at 9:13 PM

yeah, we discussed that the other night and felt that Sestak’s allegation may have been a shot from the USS H.R Clinton toward the SS Obama’s rudder.

Hard to see how it turns out, but the time that Sestak is going to have to spend on this is likely going to eclipse the time needed to run for Senate in PA, IMO.

ted c on May 26, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Uhhhm, Sesatk is in th clear, he didn’t take the job and the case could be thast he informed the authorities when said it on the air. I don’t see how he does any time.

Archimedes on May 26, 2010 at 9:13 PM

using the previous precedent matters not.

Yes it does. Maybe not in a legal standpoint but in a public relation aspect. If the law isn’t applied consistently people will see it as vindictiveness or something else as Amos pointed out earlier.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:16 PM

Yes it does. Maybe not in a legal standpoint but in a public relation aspect. If the law isn’t applied consistently people will see it as vindictiveness or something else as Amos pointed out earlier.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:16 PM

Quit with the childish B.S. This crap should not be tolerated. How many years ago was Reagan in office BTW? So any wrongs can be whisked away because someone did them in the past? Politicians love fools like you. They do and they count on you.

CWforFreedom on May 26, 2010 at 9:23 PM

Can we quit this childish game???
People like you are the reason we get more of the same.

CWforFreedom on May 26, 2010 at 9:13 PM

Childish? What’s childish is pretending this is going to bring down Obama when it’s pretty clear no one takes the enforcement of this code very seriously.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Sorry misread you, trying to work and popping in here just to peek, Strike that last.

Archimedes on May 26, 2010 at 9:26 PM

Childish? What’s childish is pretending this is going to bring down Obama when it’s pretty clear no one takes the enforcement of this code very seriously.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Right, and Kennedy had all sorts of bimbos in the White House, which made the Monica Lewinsky thing A-OK.

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Yes it does. Maybe not in a legal standpoint but in a public relation aspect. If the law isn’t applied consistently people will see it as vindictiveness or something else as Amos pointed out earlier.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:16 PM

Lionel Hutz is that you?

tetriskid on May 26, 2010 at 9:27 PM

CWforFreedom on May 26, 2010 at 9:23 PM

You really are a piece of work aren’t you? Should the DoJ bring Ed Rollins in and anyone else involved in their public flaunting of this code? The Reagan administration did the same thing and nothing happened, nothing is going to happen here either, deal with it.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Right, and Kennedy had all sorts of bimbos in the White House, which made the Monica Lewinsky thing A-OK.

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Oh for crying out load, nobody said it was okay but it sure isn’t unusual and nobody is going to jail or get impeached over it.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Why do I have a feeling that nothing will come of this?

Narutoboy on May 26, 2010 at 9:31 PM

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Talk about a piece of work. So we are doomed to the breaking of this laws and many others because others may have gotten away with it. You’re the classic useful idiot. Politicians LOVE you. Keep playing their game you frickin fool.

CWforFreedom on May 26, 2010 at 9:32 PM

You really are a piece of work aren’t you? Should the DoJ bring Ed Rollins in and anyone else involved in their public flaunting of this code? The Reagan administration did the same thing and nothing happened, nothing is going to happen here either, deal with it.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Did Ed Rollins lie about it? Either Sestak or Axelrod is lying here. Which one, and why, since it’s such a common occurrence?

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Iowa sounds like a whiny little bi*ch who complains “nothing can be done about it.” while the nation crumbles just a little bit more. Useful.

CWforFreedom on May 26, 2010 at 9:34 PM

Oh for crying out load, nobody said it was okay but it sure isn’t unusual and nobody is going to jail or get impeached over it.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:30 PM

They don’t have to go to jail or be impeached over it. Turning the light on the Chicago roaches and the resulting 24% approval rating would be fine.

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:34 PM

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Hmmmm…. I wonder why Rollins or the Reagan Whitehouse never contacted the Senator directly?

Could that be what makes these two instances DIFFERENT?

HMMMM…

tetriskid on May 26, 2010 at 9:36 PM

The RNC needs to go on the offensive here – the WH is calling their own party’s candidate for the PA senate seat a liar. Republicans need to hammer this every day with both sides, Sestak and the WH, and keep pounding them about who’s telling the truth and who’s lying.

PatMac on May 26, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Did Ed Rollins lie about it? Either Sestak or Axelrod is lying here. Which one, and why, since it’s such a common occurrence?

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:33 PM

No Rollins didn’t lie about it, they were pretty open about it, that’s the point. But lying by a politician or his aids isn’t against the law the job offer was. And you don’t think this is a common occurrence? Just wait a few days, I’m sure there will be dozens and dozens of examples by the time this is through.
Doesn’t make it right but it sure gives this administration political cover.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:38 PM

Scroll down a few posts on that thread and you can see the offending quote, quoted by another. Piss be upon him/her (happyfeet).

Monica on May 26, 2010 at 7:23 PM
Thanks! It really was a twisted person.

bluemarlin

Sorry, what thread was it banned on? I can’t find and I just got here! Thank you!

JAM on May 26, 2010 at 9:38 PM

the WH is calling their own party’s candidate for the PA senate seat a liar.

PatMac on May 26, 2010 at 9:37 PM

LOL, I know, it’s hilarious. Is Obama going to go campaign for him?

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:38 PM

They don’t have to go to jail or be impeached over it. Turning the light on the Chicago roaches and the resulting 24% approval rating would be fine.

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:34 PM

That I can agree with but be prepared for the MSM pushing the vindictiveness and racism angle.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:39 PM

No Rollins didn’t lie about it, they were pretty open about it, that’s the point. But lying by a politician or his aids isn’t against the law the job offer was.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:38 PM

So why is Axelrod lying about it?

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Hold up voting for Kagan until the WH provides some answers under oath not through their mouthpiece, Gibbs. Oh,wait, hold up Kagan because she’s not qualified to enter into a job she can hold onto for the rest of her life.

Kissmygrits on May 26, 2010 at 9:40 PM

That I can agree with but be prepared for the MSM pushing the vindictiveness and racism angle.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Who cares? Quit being so p****whipped.

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Epic fail, gang.

I know noted high school graduate and certified non-lawyer Karl Rove thinks that 47 statutes or whatever might have been violated, but back in reality, how is this a violation of the law? How is *not running* for political office “political activity”? Is inactivity a form of activity? Interesting.

Proud Rino on May 26, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Hmmmm…. I wonder why Rollins or the Reagan Whitehouse never contacted the Senator directly?

Could that be what makes these two instances DIFFERENT?

HMMMM…

tetriskid on May 26, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Good grief, that has nothing to do with it. Rollins told the press Hayakawa had a job waiting if he didn’t seek re-election, which is still against the same law.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:42 PM

I am currently sitting down, which is a form of standing.

Proud Rino on May 26, 2010 at 9:43 PM

but back in reality, how is this a violation of the law?
Proud Rino on May 26, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Ask Axelrod. He apparently thinks it would be a violation of the law.

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Good grief, that has nothing to do with it. Rollins told the press Hayakawa had a job waiting if he didn’t seek re-election, which is still against the same law.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:42 PM

That’s not against the law either. Saying, “If you decide not to run for office, we will appoint you to a different political job” is not an illegal bribe. Here’s a fun task: find a case. Find a single case that a court could rely on that uses 18 usc 600 in the same way.

Proud Rino on May 26, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Who cares? Quit being so p****whipped.

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:41 PM

You guys sit these blog cocoons and think everyone thinks the way do. Most people will see this as spite if the Republicans try to make this into something bigger then it is regardless of what you think. It’s not going to accomplish anything.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Good grief,
lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:42 PM

It’s Charlie Brown and just about as bright.

Thanks goodness we have people who stood up for right and wrong or we would still have black slavery in this country with people like Iowa.

CWforFreedom on May 26, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Proud Rino on May 26, 2010 at 9:45 PM

What do you mean, the code is pretty clear.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Thanks goodness we have people who stood up for right and wrong or we would still have black slavery in this country with people like Iowa.

CWforFreedom on May 26, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Good call, dude. Not impeaching Obama because Rahm Emanuel may have hinted that Joe Sestak would have a job in the administration if he decided to drop out of the PA Democratic Primary is exactly like enslaving all the black people, which I’m pretty sure is what lowandslow wants.

Proud Rino on May 26, 2010 at 9:49 PM

How is *not running* for political office “political activity”? Is inactivity a form of activity? Interesting.

Proud Rino on May 26, 2010 at 9:41 PM

You didn’t read the rest.

…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.

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:49 PM

CWforFreedom on May 26, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Then you’re going to admit what Reagan and Rollins did was wrong? Is that what you’re saying?

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:50 PM

What do you mean, the code is pretty clear.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Oh, it’s clear? Great – find a case.

Proud Rino on May 26, 2010 at 9:50 PM

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Interesting. You know, I voted for Bob McDonnell, but I guess since I didn’t actively run against Creigh Deeds, I guess I supported him too. I didn’t know you can only not support someone by running against them.

Proud Rino on May 26, 2010 at 9:51 PM

You guys sit these blog cocoons

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Not really. Most of us know PR when we see it. So we should just shut up and let Team O do what they want, or else they may say bad things about us!!! Who’s in the cocoon?

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Interesting. You know, I voted for Bob McDonnell, but I guess since I didn’t actively run against Creigh Deeds, I guess I supported him too. I didn’t know you can only not support someone by running against them.

Proud Rino on May 26, 2010 at 9:51 PM

So why the furtiveness from Axelrod?

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:53 PM

I’m going to try this out with my wife. I’m going to not cut the grass, and tell her that not cutting the grass is actually a form of cutting the grass. I’m going to explain that Karl Rove thinks that that’s the correct way to look at things.

Proud Rino on May 26, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Oh, it’s clear? Great – find a case.

Proud Rino on May 26, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Maybe you’re not reading it the way I read it.

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.

I would say that applies to both the Sestak and Hayakawa cases.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:55 PM

So why the furtiveness from Axelrod?

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:53 PM

Legal != good publicity

Proud Rino on May 26, 2010 at 9:56 PM

I would say that applies to both the Sestak and Hayakawa cases.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:55 PM

I know you would say that, and you would be wrong. The statute talks about political activities, and until you find a court that interprets that law to say that “not running for political office” is somehow a political activity (which you, and the entire conservative blogosphere and Karl Rove and everyone else seems to be suspiciously silent on), then they didn’t violate the law.

Proud Rino on May 26, 2010 at 9:58 PM

Not really. Most of us know PR when we see it. So we should just shut up and let Team O do what they want, or else they may say bad things about us!!! Who’s in the cocoon?

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:52 PM

It’s not about us it’s about the Republican Party members in congress and their candidates. I think some people want them to commit political suicide just for a few sound bites.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 9:59 PM

Proud Rino on May 26, 2010 at 9:58 PM

I’m no lawyer, maybe you’re right.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Rollins wasn’t trying to bribe Hayakawa out of a race. It They just liked the guy because because he stood up the commie scum at the University. No quid, no pro quo.

The crime for Barack Milhaus Obama however is not in trying to affect the outcome of a race–we do that everytime we vote–but in offering the Sec.Nav. job to affect the outcome.

Noel on May 26, 2010 at 10:18 PM

Rollins wasn’t trying to bribe Hayakawa out of a race. It They just liked the guy because because he stood up the commie scum at the University. No quid, no pro quo.

They said if he didn’t run for office, they would find him a job in the administration.

The crime for Barack Milhaus Obama however is not in trying to affect the outcome of a race–we do that everytime we vote–but in offering the Sec.Nav. job to affect the outcome.

Noel on May 26, 2010 at 10:18 PM

Which law does that violate?

Proud Rino on May 26, 2010 at 10:21 PM

Rollins wasn’t trying to bribe Hayakawa out of a race. It They just liked the guy because because he stood up the commie scum at the University. No quid, no pro quo.

The crime for Barack Milhaus Obama however is not in trying to affect the outcome of a race–we do that everytime we vote–but in offering the Sec.Nav. job to affect the outcome.

Noel on May 26, 2010 at 10:18 PM

After re-reading the article it sounds like it may been the Reagan Administration looking out for him but I can’t get past the fact Reagan’s daughter was going to run against him in the primary if he choose to run.

lowandslow on May 26, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Eric Holder probably offered the bribe.

Otherwise, Blago should probably be asked if he thinks Rahm did it keeping up the old Chicago Way traditions as he did for Zero’s US Senate replacement auction.

viking01 on May 26, 2010 at 10:28 PM

This situation has serious implications re federal law. Either Sestak was not telling the truth re a serious allegation, or someone in the WH administration is lying. The only way that the truth can come out is through an investigation by a special prosecutor. Sestak would be obligated to name names and details.

The WH cronies have been stonewalling Issa, who is doing his job re ethics breaches. If no Democrats want to join in a demand for an investigation, then their silence indicates that they condone breaking a clearly defined statute.

I wouldn’t pursue the matter as a matter of impeachability nor as a specific job offer; eg. SECNAV. This is not a fishing expedition. The ethics issue is very clear cut.

BTW Isn’t Toomey terrific in that video? He doesn’t get snookered into addressing silly distracting issues. He is fiscally responsible and very well versed in sound economic principles. He is the kind of senator who would do our country proud.

onlineanalyst on May 26, 2010 at 10:40 PM

If nobody in the Obama Administration answers for this legally, than Sestak will be soundly defeated in November and then he will really spill the beans. Win-Win.

RobCon on May 26, 2010 at 10:44 PM

They said if he didn’t run for office, they would find him a job in the administration

No, they said if he had already decided on his own and wasn’t busy next year, they were interested. “if he didn’t”, not “to make sure he didn’t”. And even that’s based on an AP interpretation, not a quote.

Which law does [Barack Milhaus Obama's offering the Sec.Nav. job to affect the election outcome] violate?

(3) No officer or employee may directly or indirectly give to any other officer, employee or person in the service of the United States, any money or other thing of value to be applied to the promotion of any political objective. 18 U.S.C. 607.

(2) Using official authority in interfering with a Federal election by a person employed in any administrative position by the United States or by any department, independent establishment, or agency of the United States or by any State, agency, or political subdivision thereof in connection with any activity financed in whole or in part by Federal funds (18 U.S.C. 595).

(3) Promising Federal employment, compensation, or any benefit from Federal funds, in return for political activity or support (18 U.S.C. 600).

Noel on May 26, 2010 at 10:45 PM

The statute talks about political activities, and until you find a court that interprets that law to say that “not running for political office” is somehow a political activity (which you, and the entire conservative blogosphere and Karl Rove and everyone else seems to be suspiciously silent on), then they didn’t violate the law.

Proud Rino on May 26, 2010 at 9:58 PM

Oh, give me a break. It’s precisely that sort of sophistry that has given lawyers a bad name for generations. The act of withdrawing from a race in order to benefit the chances of someone else is an activity.

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 10:56 PM

The cabinet member to fall on the sword for Obama will be…

G W Bush. After all, everything that has been bad in the Obama administration has been found to be his fault. I do not know why they have not fired him from the staff yet. His actions are making the Obama administration continually look bad, especially after his screw up that caused the oil link in the Gulf.

mechkiller_k on May 26, 2010 at 10:58 PM

The beauty part is that Toomey is not taking the bait, nor is he using this issue in his campaign ads. Toomey is talking about the issues, where he presents the clearest choice in getting our country back on track. Sestak will only be an ObaMao policy and legislative promoter of far, far Left ideology.

onlineanalyst on May 26, 2010 at 11:08 PM

but back in reality, how is this a violation of the law?
Proud Rino on May 26, 2010 at 9:41 PM
Ask Axelrod. He apparently thinks it would be a violation of the law.

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Even Specter said that the offer for Sestak to drop out of the race with the promise of some nebulous (as far as we know) job would be the sweetener.

I say: Can the talk about impeachment (though I would really like it) and can the talk about the specific job of SECNAV. The issue is not a political football; it concerns a breach of the law and ethics.

Put the primary suspects in the public eye and demand some answers through an objective investigator. Repeat the necessity for verifiable answers to settle the conflict of opinion between the WH and Sestak.

This administration is trying to brazen out the kerfuffle as they have done with other questionable decisions and actions. The administration has to be accountable via the checks and balances of Congress’s oversight.

onlineanalyst on May 26, 2010 at 11:24 PM

Sestak told FNC’s Bret Baer (March interview) that he was promised a WH job if he would not run for PA Senate. Sestak out-right admitted the promise of a job was offered. The only question now is: Who was it?

TN Mom on May 27, 2010 at 12:24 AM

This means nothing because it isn’t a crime. A crime is when law enforcement takes interest, the prosecutors take interest or the judges take interest. If none do it isn’t a crime. An affront to society maybe, but not a crime.

That sad fact is why politicians are continuing to be corrupted and never held accountable.

Smoke- no fire.

Sorry guys, but it is what it is and there is nothing anyone, including Michelle or Hotair, can do about it.

archer52 on May 27, 2010 at 12:28 AM

I’m going to try this out with my wife. I’m going to not cut the grass, and tell her that not cutting the grass is actually a form of cutting the grass. I’m going to explain that Karl Rove thinks that that’s the correct way to look at things.

Proud Rino

Maybe you should work on not smoking the grass before taking on more complicated tasks.

xblade on May 27, 2010 at 1:02 AM

Ah, deja voodoo Chicago pay to play politics strike all over again. After IL ex-gov. Hot Rod was indicted for racketeering, fraud and extortion, the Obama Office of the President Elect investigated yet another example of legal malfeasance that simply had never “occurred” within the Obama Office of the President Elect cause Prez Hopey Dopey don’t play that game. They all can dance of the head of a pin and pass through the eye of a needle at will so why would they lower themselves to get down and dirty with Blago? Right. They were all innocent and Rod was nuts. “This whole story regarding the (flipping golden) Senate seat is upside down…. But the fact remains that people approached us about campaign contributions if I either appointed them or the person they were supporting to the Senate. If anyone should have been charged with a crime for this, it should have been them and not me.” Rod Blagojevich, The Governor” (Phoenix Books, Inc., 2009) p. 181. Wedged amongst the lies and half truths, Rod does throw into the mix the occasional real name, nom de plume, date and occasion – all verifiable. He’s not that nuts. There are some real gems hidden in this volume that just might provide some insight into the Sestak bribe and Rod’s upcoming trial strategy. Poor Rod is being smeared as a silly cuckoo for a reason. He is all that but the guy knows plenty and keeps trying to stay in the public eye for a good reason. These “wise guys” are starting to make Nixon, Clinton, Reagan and Bush look like pikers – or just regular politicians instead of evil clown criminals that wear frickin’ golden stomping boots.

MayorDaley on May 27, 2010 at 4:08 AM

May as well investigate how Obama got into the Senate while your at it.

johnnyU on May 27, 2010 at 4:58 AM

Well if nothing else, I’m impressed that at least a few elected Republicans are actually finding the balls to start balking at stuff like this.

I don’t expect this particular instance to actually amount to anything, mind you. But it could still be construed — optimistically — that maybe a few Republicans are starting to grow some spinal tissue.

Cylor on May 27, 2010 at 7:31 AM

If nobody in the Obama Administration answers for this legally, than Sestak will be soundly defeated in November and then he will really spill the beans. Win-Win.

RobCon on May 26, 2010 at 10:44 PM

good point!

cmsinaz on May 27, 2010 at 8:06 AM

So far, the best argument against impeachment is President Joe Biden. While that would be highly entertaining, I am not sure it would be any better for the country. (I wonder if Obama did that on purpose?)

Anyhoo… it sounds like the next Republican Congress will be very very busy.

bitsy on May 27, 2010 at 9:26 AM

DOJ will not be able to look into this because all of their efforts are laser focused on Arizona.

Dingbat63 on May 27, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Never elect anyone from Chicago.

ConDem on May 27, 2010 at 10:26 AM

I haven’t read the posts b/c I have sinus infection and my head feels like a balloon, but I have a question:

Can’t somebody step in from an external, non-partisan group to look into this? It’s the same as trusting a goat to watch a field of lettuce.

That’s a saying from Puerto Rico, but it applies to this situation.

ProudPalinFan on May 27, 2010 at 11:10 AM

I doubt it was Axelrod. He’s the behind-the-scenes political weasel. For the shiv man, my money’s on Rahm.

mojo on May 27, 2010 at 11:18 AM

I’m not sure this statute applies in a situation where the recipient is being asked to drop out of a race. I think the statute is designed to prevent a situation where Joe Blow is running for office and asks Jane Do to support him and, if she does, is told there’ll be a job for her in Joe Blow’s administration.

Jimbo3 on May 27, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3