Sestak speaks: Hey, no biggie

posted at 6:32 pm on May 28, 2010 by Allahpundit

Let me get this straight: The president’s chief of staff dispatched a former president to talk to an aspiring senator about dropping his primary bid in return for … a spot on some no-name unpaid advisory board? Does that sound remotely plausible? (Surprisingly, lefty sedition expert Joe Klein says no, before quickly adding that it doesn’t matter anyway.) Does that even square with what Sestak’s said in the past about having been offered “a job”?

Why, no, it doesn’t:

Let’s look back at what Rep. Sestak told local TV host Larry Kane in February.

KANE: “Were you ever offered a federal job to get out of this race?”

SESTAK: “Yes.”

KANE: “Was it secretary of the Navy?”

SESTAK: “No comment”

Later Kane asks again, “Was there a job offered to you by the White House?” to which Sestak nods and replies “yes, someone offered it.”

Kane asks “It was big right?” Sestak replies, “Let me “no comment” on it.”

“Was it high-ranking?” Kane asked. Sestak said yes.

Watch the clip. I don’t see the part where Sestak says it was high-ranking, but according to interviewer Larry Kane, “he admitted that it was a ‘high up’ job.” Anyone seriously think Sestak considered some lame “advisory” title to be something “high up”? Oh, and another thing: If all that was at stake here was an innocent li’l advisory position, why would the White House initially deny to Kane that any offer had been made? Jonah Goldberg sums it up:

I can only conclude that Sestak is either lying or a blowhard. Because, if he’s telling the truth, that means he mistook a casual offer for a seat on some advisory board (Maritime Commission for the Rules of Card Games on Both Sides of the International Dateline or the Blue Ribbon Panel on the Perils of Accumulated Naval Navel Lint) as some kind of serious bribe to stay out of the Senate race. Right? I mean the whole point of Sestak spilling the beans about the “job offer” was for him to bolster his independent-against-the-machine cred. If it wasn’t a job offer but instead was some third-rate perk, he shouldn’t have pretended otherwise to seem like the one honest man in the whorehouse of politics.

The GOP’s not buying it — “The White House got Bill Clinton involved for this?” — but there’s really no recourse to getting answers short of relentless media pressure, and we all know how likely that is. In fact, the CW has quickly settled on a “this is how D.C. operates” narrative, with the White House’s only sin lying in the fact that it acted guilty even though it wasn’t. Two things in response. One: Per the terms of the governing statute, pretty clearly they are guilty. 18 U.S.C. 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.

It doesn’t have to be a paid position and it doesn’t have to be a direct promise. Which brings me to point two: Why do we even have federal statutes that criminalize this sort of thing? If it’s all about the Beltway and horse-tradin’ and deals and handshakes and blah blah jaded politico blah, then repeal section 600 and embrace the smoke-filled room in earnest. In fact, I vaguely recall that we were promised, circa Fall 2008, that the culture of D.C. was going to Change. Enlisting Slick Willie to bribe an upstart candidate and then lying about the position he was offered, as they’re obviously doing right now, is the very antithesis of that. And yet, I’d bet cash money that this story will be allowed to sink beneath the waves next week.

Via RCP, below the Sestak clip you’ll find video of Slick himself clearly not wanting to talk about this. With good reason.


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 5

I hope this unravels big and three libs are taken out with one stone.

Marcus on May 28, 2010 at 6:34 PM

What’s with all the jacket-over-the-shoulder stuff with these crooks?
Can’t they find a suit that has armholes?

TexasJew on May 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM

The offered position had to rise to the rank of a U.S. Senator or it wouldn’t have been remotely credible.

John the Libertarian on May 28, 2010 at 6:37 PM

Which brings me to point two: Why do we even have federal statutes that criminalize this sort of thing?

To force Republicans to relinquish their Congressional seats of course silly…

doriangrey on May 28, 2010 at 6:38 PM

And yet, I’d bet cash money that this story will be allowed to sink beneath the waves next week.

Yep. But that was a given from the beginning. With Holder as our AG, there was never any amount of evidence that would have compelled an investigation anyway, no matter what the MSM did. Of course, it goes without saying what would have happened if the GOP/Bush had pulled a stunt like this, so I won’t say it.

AUINSC on May 28, 2010 at 6:38 PM

I find the interview with The Ed Show troubling when
Sestak says,”because thats about politics”,in that,
it sounds to me,he is saying yes,but hey,no biggy,
its politics!!

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 6:39 PM

Daley does this kind of thing much, much better.

aquaviva on May 28, 2010 at 6:39 PM

It doesn’t have to be a paid position and it doesn’t have to be a direct promise.

But it does have to be a position “provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress.” That’s Obama’s escape hatch–these advisory board positions are created by executive order, not Acts of Congress.

Fabozz on May 28, 2010 at 6:39 PM

Kagan gets filibustered until something is done about this…

ninjapirate on May 28, 2010 at 6:40 PM

The offered position had to rise to the rank of a U.S. Senator or it wouldn’t have been remotely credible.

John the Libertarian on May 28, 2010 at 6:37 PM

Not really, given that there’s no guarantee he’d win the race.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 6:40 PM

Most ethical congress evah!!!!!!111111!!!!eleventy

jukin on May 28, 2010 at 6:40 PM

Not really, given that there’s no guarantee he’d win the race…

I agree… but he was already a US Rep, had been an admiral, had already toured most the state, and had $3mil in the bank for this run…

ninjapirate on May 28, 2010 at 6:43 PM

bill is looking old…

toenail on May 28, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Kagan gets filibustered until something is done about this…

ninjapirate on May 28, 2010 at 6:40 PM

In your dreams, the Republicans are nearly as corrupt as the Democrats, they’ll help Obama sweep this under the carpet. Their objections up until now were purely for leverage on something, exactly what we’ll find out in the coming weeks or months.

doriangrey on May 28, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Kagan gets filibustered until something is done about this…

ninjapirate on May 28, 2010 at 6:40 PM

lol.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Not really, given that there’s no guarantee he’d win the race.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 6:40 PM

But you don’t run thinking you’re going to lose.

John the Libertarian on May 28, 2010 at 6:45 PM

And Blago will be going to trial for what exactly ?

macncheez on May 28, 2010 at 6:45 PM

Not really, given that there’s no guarantee he’d win the race.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 6:40 PM

But you don’t run thinking you’re going to lose.

John the Libertarian on May 28, 2010 at 6:45 PM

Well obviously he knows that there’s a chance he’ll lose. So the offer wouldn’t be:
Senate seat for X post in the administration

It would be:

Chance at a Senate seat for X post in the administration.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 6:47 PM

Heres Holder on the hot seat,about Sestak!
===================================================

What’s Obama AG Holder Got to Hide on Sestak White House Bribe Charges?
—————

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9piz2D9s5g&feature=PlayList&p=F8CD25F92BFC4A7F&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=53

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 6:47 PM

Mrs. Palin…

Mrs. Sarah Palin…

Please pick up a white courtesy phone for an important call…

Mrs. Sarah Palin…

Please pick up a white courtesy phone for an important call…

Thank you.

turfmann on May 28, 2010 at 6:48 PM

This whole deal is Chicago politics at its’ best. Sleazy.

kingsjester on May 28, 2010 at 6:49 PM

Anyone that has been following this story has to feel like they just got crapped on.
The MFM are by now clearly at home in this kind of poop.

Whatever level of dishonesty is at work here two things are obvious,
1. The MFM aren’t seriously interested in getting to the bottom of it.

2. There’s something more than just a little off with this Sestak character that always seems to bring Eric Massa to mind. (at least this twisted one)

ontherocks on May 28, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Apparently Sestak (I missed his presser) confirmed a short phone call with Bill Clinton. However, as Krauthammer just parsed out on Fox, the WH’s own report concedes efforts were made during June and July. Krauthammer also notes the report does not contain a specfic denial that paid jobs were offered.

In other words, there are still a lot of questions. (Duh…we regular citizen types asked so many right off when we heard this clearly made to order explanation)

And yes, I am second to no one in knowing the msm are handmaidens of the Dems. But that won’t stop us from asking the questions. Brett Baier just said they on Fox will continue to investigate.

KittyLowrey on May 28, 2010 at 6:50 PM

And Blago will be going to trial for what exactly ?

macncheez on May 28, 2010 at 6:45 PM

macncheez: Selling a seat?!

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 6:51 PM

It would be:

Chance at a Senate seat for X post in the administration.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 6:47 PM

No, it’s stepping aside for Team O’s favored candidate in exchange for a job.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 6:51 PM

What’s with all the jacket-over-the-shoulder stuff with these crooks?
Can’t they find a suit that has armholes?

TexasJew on May 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM

It’s supposed to convey a carefree attitude. Not worried ’bout a thing. Nope, not a single thing. See? Just casually bopping along here with my jacket over my shoulder screams “I am one innocent guy!”.

KittyLowrey on May 28, 2010 at 6:52 PM

G. Terry Madonna, the sharp Pennsylvania pollster at Franklin & Marshall College, makes a good point in a conversation with NRO. “This [White House] explanation sounds plausible, but somewhat unbelievable,” he tells us. “Last summer, when this conversation supposedly took place, Sestak was visiting all 67 counties in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is a huge state and that’s a major ordeal — it took him months. His candidacy, even then, was no lark. What was in the White House’s head to make it think that an offer so inconsequential would sway him? At that point, it was already clear he was serious. While the idea of sending in Bill Clinton to do its bidding is sort of brilliant, the offer he brought seems quite small in context to Sestak’s political movement at the time. This issue is still a hydra that could grow another head.”

NRO.

I can’t imagine how this could grow another head since everyone, including the MSM and Holder, are now reading from the same script. Remember when Jill Biden let slip that Joe had a choice between VP and SoS? And how fast that was a “misspeak” and went down the memory hole. The same statute was implicated.

The GOP shouldn’t let up (keep referring to the “Sestak coverup”), but should target PA for extra effort. Sestak gave up his House seat for this campaign. Come January, maybe all he’ll have will be his Navy pension.

Wethal on May 28, 2010 at 6:52 PM

“The White House got Bill Clinton involved for this?”

OH that is an excellent question. Do you need an ex-President to offer a guy an unpaid position as a lowly advisor. No Rahm could do that himself.

They are in it deep and they are not helping by lying so obviously!

They are not even believable. And Clinton as we know is a darn good liar.

This lie must be big to knock Clinton off his game.

petunia on May 28, 2010 at 6:52 PM

With all the problems we face, this is nothing more than a colossal waste of time and a distraction. Politics, after all, is a transactional business. Most importantly, it’s almost impossible to prove any crime was committed.

While this SNAFU is entertaining for now, and another example of the circus in the White House and the blatant hypocrisy of these clowns, I believe it will get old fast.

Finally, Issa calling for special prosecutor is ludicrous.

ak2ary on May 28, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Listening to Holder on the hot seat!!

If you think Holders No Muslim questioning
was a mind-bender,this is priceless!!

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Neer a mention in the MSM.They were too busy touting Obama’s healing visit to the Gulf. All is well. He says he will not desert them. A little reference to Bush I guess. Yeah, it only took him 39 days to feel their pain…

sandee on May 28, 2010 at 6:53 PM

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 6:47 PM

No, it’s stepping aside for Team O’s favored candidate in exchange for a job.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 6:51 PM

You realize you are arguing with a babbling fool and useful idiot.

CWforFreedom on May 28, 2010 at 6:54 PM

but there’s really no recourse to getting answers short of relentless media pressure, and we all know how likely that is.

No chance at all, which the Democrats know. If it weren’t for their media butt-boys, the Democrats would be the fringe party that they in reality are.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 6:54 PM

So was Sestak lying previously or lying now?

Mr. Joe on May 28, 2010 at 6:55 PM

The cover-up will be much more damaging than the actual crime committed.
Republicans will take over the house in November.
Republicans will close the gap in the Senate to 1-2 seats.
Republicans will open up investigations into this crime.
This will not end well for Obama and several others. Wasn’t it grand of Obama to pull slick Willy into this. That man is destined to spend time locked up. He snaked his way out of using the IRS to attack his enemies; used the FBI for various personal projects; screwed anything that walked around the globe on tax payer dollars… Now he’s involved himself in a huge cover-up. Stupid is as stupid does.

Keemo on May 28, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Chance at a Senate seat for X post in the administration.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 6:47 PM

X post in the administration can only last as long as the administration. A Senate seat can be a job for life once you’re an incumbent who delivers the pork and doesn’t get indicted for something.

A Senate seat can also be a stepping stone to higher office, and as rockmom has noted, Sestak is widely rumored to have presidential ambitions.

Wethal on May 28, 2010 at 6:56 PM

I’ve been waiting all day for your take, AP. Thanks for not disappointing. Here’s the part that I don’t get in all this: why on earth would Clinton have gotten involved in this “horse trading?” Given his experience in high stakes politics, he had to know that he was the “buffer” in this little story. So what was he getting out of relaying the message? Why stick his neck out? For love of Rahm? There is, however, a bit of context here in that the book “Thumpin’” all three players in this sordid tale were also grouped together in that book. Rahm brought Clinton and Sestak together when Sestak was running for election. So that lends some context to all this in terms of the players involved. If you as me, Sestak wanted the Navy sec. position, but due to the bad blood between him and Mullen, it was a non-starter. When Specter jumped ship on Apr. 28, Sestak announced he’d go against Specter on May 1st, realizing that he’d have an opportunity to throw a monkey wrench into things, which may give him leverage on the Navy job. When Obama wouldn’t give it to him, another “high position” was offered, which Sestak rejected. If that’s how it played out, then all the parties involved can simply inject the “non-paid advisory” position into the mix as the substitute and viola! All the stories can still add up with only Sestak’s own words as a rebuff. No prob. Just say he misspoke and all’s good.

Weight of Glory on May 28, 2010 at 6:57 PM

No, it’s stepping aside for Team O’s favored candidate in exchange for a job.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 6:51 PM

Something like that, yeah. Clinton probably just approached him and said “you know, we’d like you to help us out in the administration and we may have a spot for you, if you’d consider dropping out of the race.”

That statute is unbelievably broad by the way, and I’d be willing to bet Bush (and Clinton, and Reagan…) violated it hundreds of time. Virtually ever appointment is given in consideration for some sort of “political activity.” Unless it’s your guys’ position that appointments prior to this have always been perfectly meritocratic?

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 6:57 PM

Heh.

The Mighty Bubba reduced to the role of Chicago bag man.

Sarc aside, I’ll give Obozo props for using Clinton as a bullet-stop.

Now the question is: ‘will Bubba stay content with that role?’

CPT. Charles on May 28, 2010 at 6:59 PM

And Blago will be going to trial for what exactly ?

macncheez on May 28, 2010 at 6:45 PM

Good point.

NTWR on May 28, 2010 at 6:59 PM

This one time at band camp…

Americannodash on May 28, 2010 at 7:01 PM

This whole thing stinks.I remember distinctly the big stink Sestak made when he revealed that the White House offered him a job for not running against Specter. He was really pissed at the time. Now, it’s no big deal? I’m not buying it.

sandee on May 28, 2010 at 7:01 PM

If you look at Sestak’s hand that is holding his jacket over his shoulder,…..his two fingers are crossed.

LIAR!!!

portlandon on May 28, 2010 at 7:01 PM

Just heard the top of the hour AP news and Sestak was on saying he only spoke to Clinton for a minute and it wasn’t any big deal. How stupid do they think we are?

sandee on May 28, 2010 at 7:03 PM

Something like that, yeah. Clinton probably just approached him and said “you know, we’d like you to help us out in the administration and we may have a spot for you, if you’d consider dropping out of the race.”

Why didn’t they wait until after the race?

That statute is unbelievably broad by the way,

LOL…we seem to hear that whenever any Dem gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar. “What is ‘cookie’ and what is ‘jar’?”

and I’d be willing to bet Bush (and Clinton, and Reagan…) violated it hundreds of time.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 6:57 PM

Any examples come to mind? Someone tried to use the Hayakawa example already and it was a fail, so don’t try.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 7:03 PM

Lying liars all over the place. I want subpoenas.

Philly on May 28, 2010 at 7:03 PM

Sestak follows the path of many former military Liberals who entered politics and sold their soul for power… What a shame for a man who served in the greatest establishment ever created; wore the uniform of a warrior, only to sell his soul… Sad

Keemo on May 28, 2010 at 7:04 PM

Weight of Glory on May 28, 2010 at 6:57 PM

Sestak and Clitnon go way back (I think rockmom noted Clinton promoted Sestak to admiral). If they wanted Sestak to quit, they needed someone Sestak might listen to.

Presumably the PA Dem machine had already tried to get Sestak to quit. But Fast Eddie Rendell is a lame duck governor without much influence (he was supposed to deliver the noimnation for Arlen, remember?)

And no one expected Sestak would be such a political rookie to blab this to the media. If he had kept quiet, it would have been Clintonian/Chicago politics as usual.

Wethal on May 28, 2010 at 7:04 PM

Also we need to remember that when Crist jumped ship one of the first things he did was try to get a hold of Rahm. It was thought that he wanted the Admin. to, ahem, work something out with Meek. Some parallels there.

Weight of Glory on May 28, 2010 at 7:04 PM

This is either Alice or Monty Python show,why would any one send SLICK WILLIE to set the record straight.Willie is a gifted liar but how can he help the one?Dead fish smell better than this whole story line.

Col.John Wm. Reed on May 28, 2010 at 7:04 PM

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 6:57 PM

No -not the but they did it too argument

Sheesh grow up

CWforFreedom on May 28, 2010 at 7:04 PM

Sestak and Clitnon go way back (I think rockmom noted Clinton promoted Sestak to admiral). If they wanted Sestak to quit, they needed someone Sestak might listen to.

Wethal on May 28, 2010 at 7:04 PM

Hmm. Thanks. I missed that in my little bit o’ research last night. But I started looking in 2006, so there’s probably a lot of back story I’m missing.

Weight of Glory on May 28, 2010 at 7:06 PM

Darrel Issa will not let this go…

Seven Percent Solution on May 28, 2010 at 7:07 PM

Ever since the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ranking member Darrell Issa (R-CA) sent a letter to Emanuel last year saying “While this type of scare tactic may work In Chicago, it will not work to intimidate me or other members of the United States Congress,” Issa has been sharpening the knives for the runt. Go Team Issa. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has denied the impeached Illinois ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s request to delay his corruption trial, Issa should get a ring side seat at that side show, scheduled now to begin June 3. How many times will the dwarf be on those tapes? How many times will Durbin the Dick be on those tapes? How many more Illinois/Chicago politicians will appear on these wire taps? This trial should keep the Sestak narrative alive for at least the next few months. And of course that messy little matter in Colorado must have legs too.

MayorDaley on May 28, 2010 at 7:08 PM

If they wanted Sestak to quit, they needed someone Sestak might listen to.

Wethal on May 28, 2010 at 7:04 PM

If indeed it was Clinton who approached Sestak, it was to provide plausible deniability. “Of course the White House never approached Sestak…Bill Clinton did. So we’re cool with the statute.”

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 7:09 PM

…….If this was a REPUBLICAN????????
Sestak is a bigger pile of dung than Benedict Arlen…if that is possible…this ‘press conference’ was a circle jerk.

HornetSting on May 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Something like that, yeah. Clinton probably just approached him and said “you know, we’d like you to help us out in the administration and we may have a spot for you, if you’d consider dropping out of the race.”

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 6:57 PM

Clinton was no doubt brought in after the Dem machine in PA could not get Sestak to switch. Sestak was presumably told that the machine would back Arlen (it did), and he’d be on his own for fundraising. Sestak still wouldn’t quit, and had support from lefty Dems who liked his politics,as opposed to Arlen’s “moderate” Dem politics, and who also didn’t trust Arlen as a Dem party-switcher.

Once Sestak withstood that pressure, they had to get someone else in to try to shut down Sestak’s campaign, and Clinton was the choice.

Wethal on May 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Any examples come to mind?

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 7:03 PM

Virtually every appointment made by any President, ever.

Again, look at the language here…

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.

Unless the appointment was perfectly meritocratic, it violated the statute. If it was in consideration for any sort of political support (i.e., working on the campaign, etc) then it violates federal law. The only reason I can think of for why people haven’t been prosecuted is because it’s very difficult to prove. As long as the guy who’s appointed is somewhat qualified, the President has plausible deniability. Here you have direct proof, from Sestak himself. I’d be willing to bet that the person who ordered this didn’t even know about this particular federal statute.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM

I’d be willing to bet that the person who ordered this didn’t even know about this particular federal statute.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM

And until recently, I bet Sestak didn’t know about it either…

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Ummm,Hopey/Changey is putting his faith into Bubba,who
was CENSURED,as well as,his Lawyer Licence was suspended,
for five years,

well,good luck with that!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 7:13 PM

What’s with all the jacket-over-the-shoulder stuff with these crooks? Can’t they find a suit that has armholes?

TexasJew on May 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM

..I must counsel you in the sternest terms, sir, that if you persist with these impertinent remarks, I shall be sending you a bill for the countless keyboards and monitors they have caused me to ruin from spontaneous oral fluid expulsion.

The War Planner on May 28, 2010 at 7:13 PM

Here you have direct proof, from Sestak himself. I’d be willing to bet that the person who ordered this didn’t even know about this particular federal statute.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM

The WH knew about the statute, as it was the same one that got Jill Biden in trouble before this when she blurted out Joe was offered VP or S0S. They had her “correct” that quickly.

Wethal on May 28, 2010 at 7:14 PM

I’d be willing to bet that the person who ordered this didn’t even know about this particular federal statute.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM
And until recently, I bet Sestak didn’t know about it either…

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 7:12 PM

You’re arguing with yourself now, douchebag?

HornetSting on May 28, 2010 at 7:15 PM

Virtually every appointment made by any President, ever.

Again, look at the language here…

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.

Unless the appointment was perfectly meritocratic, it violated the statute. If it was in consideration for any sort of political support (i.e., working on the campaign, etc) then it violates federal law. The only reason I can think of for why people haven’t been prosecuted is because it’s very difficult to prove. As long as the guy who’s appointed is somewhat qualified, the President has plausible deniability. Here you have direct proof, from Sestak himself. I’d be willing to bet that the person who ordered this didn’t even know about this particular federal statute.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Ummmm…I think you’re overlooking a few little words here in the statute:

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,

That shoots “every appointment by every President” right in the head. Not every appointment is made to manipulate an election.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 7:16 PM

The Dems are imitating Lt. Frank Drebin:

Nothing to see here…move along…nothing to see here.

kingsjester on May 28, 2010 at 7:16 PM

Here you have direct proof, from Sestak himself. I’d be willing to bet that the person who ordered this didn’t even know about this particular federal statute.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM

He’s given several different kinds of proof. His story has changed. Put him under oath.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 7:17 PM

And until recently, I bet Sestak didn’t know about it either…

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Your Sergeant Schulz endorsement of Sestak and the Zero Administration legendary ignorance and incompetence is duly noted.

viking01 on May 28, 2010 at 7:18 PM

I’d be willing to bet that the person who ordered this didn’t even know about this particular federal statute.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM

You should know that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 7:19 PM

Darrel Issa will not let this go…

Seven Percent Solution on May 28, 2010 at 7:07 PM

Being as I live in San Diego County I genuinely wish that I could believe that. Even more importantly I wish that should Darrel Issa keep after this that it would matter.

But the truth is that the Fifth Column Treasonous Socialist Propaganda Organ Media will do everything in their power to keep this from gaining any public traction and the Eric Holder Department of Injustice will never allow any kind of investigation to proceed, neither Sestak nor Clinton will ever sit before a Grand Jury or be required to give sworn testimony.

doriangrey on May 28, 2010 at 7:19 PM

Dang right his story has changed. I read that the Attorney General of Penn. has the right to investigate. He is a Republican. Has anyone else heard that?

sandee on May 28, 2010 at 7:19 PM

I’d be willing to bet that the person who ordered this didn’t even know about this particular federal statute.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM
And until recently, I bet Sestak didn’t know about it either…

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 7:12 PM

To both CRR6s- as you know ignorance of the law is….

CWforFreedom on May 28, 2010 at 7:19 PM

An admiral with a record of distinquished service has been relegated to the level of a lying punk. Welcome to the club, Sestak. It is good to have cheap tools like you and Slick Willie’s pardon pimp, Eric Holder, around until there is room under the bus.

volsense on May 28, 2010 at 7:20 PM

…….If this was a REPUBLICAN????????
Sestak is a bigger pile of dung than Benedict Arlen…if that is possible…this ‘press conference’ was a circle jerk.

HornetSting on May 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM

HornetSting:Oh boy,it would be an Orgasmic crossing of the
Tingle streams,morphing into a 24/7 Liberal
w*t dream!!:)

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 7:21 PM

An admiral with a record of distinquished service has been relegated to the level of a lying punk.

volsense on May 28, 2010 at 7:20 PM

What did he expect to be when he joined the Democrats? LOL

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 7:21 PM

One: Per the terms of the governing statute, pretty clearly they are guilty. 18 U.S.C. 600:

I see. Not running in an election is political activity? That’s an interesting way to look at it, in the sense that that is completely wrong.

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 7:21 PM

To both CRR6s- as you know ignorance of the law is….

CWforFreedom on May 28, 2010 at 7:19 PM

CWforFreedom: What do you mean two,or is it a Cybil!:)

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 7:22 PM

I see. Not running in an election is political activity?

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 7:21 PM

No. Withdrawing from the race is an activity.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 7:23 PM

That statute is unbelievably broad by the way,

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 6:57 PM

This is true. Every single white collar crime statute is terribly written. “Honest services fraud”? LOL. What a joke.

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 7:23 PM

This whole line of defence is shovel ready.

William Amos on May 28, 2010 at 7:23 PM

No. Withdrawing from the race is an activity.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 7:23 PM

How so?

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 7:24 PM

“Bill Clinton acted stupidly”

William Amos on May 28, 2010 at 7:24 PM

I’d be willing to bet that the person who ordered this didn’t even know about this particular federal statute.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Oh you’re right.

Ignorance of the law is always such an awesome defense.

tetriskid on May 28, 2010 at 7:24 PM

This is true. Every single white collar crime statute is terribly written. “Honest services fraud”? LOL. What a joke.

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Well, it’s too bad they can’t all be written by geniuses such as yourself.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 7:25 PM

This whole line of defence is shovel ready.

William Amos on May 28, 2010 at 7:23 PM

William Amos Now thats a Big F***ing Deal!!:)

canopfor on May 28, 2010 at 7:25 PM

No. Withdrawing from the race is an activity.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 7:23 PM

How so?

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 7:24 PM

Are you saying that withdrawing from a political race is not an action?

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 7:25 PM

^ Likewise, are you saying that candidates have not in the past withdrawn from an election in order to help another candidate?

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Well, it’s too bad they can’t all be written by geniuses such as yourself.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 7:25 PM

I’m not saying I’d do any better. Badly written laws are badly written laws. You’re dealing with sophisticated criminals though, and I guess the idea is that you’d rather have something overly broad, with prosecutorial discretion, rather than not be able to prosecute seriously immoral activity that doesn’t satisfy the letter of the law.

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 7:26 PM

I see. Not running in an election is political activity? That’s an interesting way to look at it, in the sense that that is completely wrong.

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 7:21 PM

When the individual in question has already publicly stated their intent and filed the appropriate paperwork to run for public office making any kind of offer to entice them to rescind that offer violates 18 U.S.C. 600…

doriangrey on May 28, 2010 at 7:27 PM

BTW Im still waiting for some leftie to tell me what law the US violated in invading Iraq. I have asked that question since 2003 and never got an answer.

William Amos on May 28, 2010 at 7:27 PM

Krauthammer also notes the report does not contain a specfic denial that paid jobs were offered.

KittyLowrey on May 28, 2010 at 6:50 PM

..oh, Kitty, the statement is fraught with such things as (1) ignorance of the statute (*any* job whether compensated or not, is prohibited), (2) it specifically denies the SecNav job but does not deny any other job being offered, and (3) the statement is made by Obama’s advocates, not an adjudicative body therefore, there opinions are dust in the wind. Also, there’s a tacit admission in the statement that they *did* offer a job.

There will be a bloody field day tearing this statement apart. The fun is just beginning.

The War Planner on May 28, 2010 at 7:27 PM

Are you saying that withdrawing from a political race is not an action?

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 7:25 PM

No, how is not running in a political race a political activity? Does inactivity count as activity? I am currently sitting down, so are you saying that’s now a form of standing?

Cats are really just non-dogs. Up is really just not-down. I love these wacky “anything goes” interpretations of the law!

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 7:28 PM

I’m not saying I’d do any better. Badly written laws are badly written laws.

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 7:26 PM

All laws tend to be “badly written” when the accused is someone you’d rather not see accused.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 7:28 PM

What was in this for Clinton?

SlaveDog on May 28, 2010 at 7:29 PM

I see. Not running in an election is political activity?

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 7:21 PM

You cannot be serious. Sestak declared he was running in the beginning of May, only a few days after Specter left the Repub party. By Sestak’s own admission, the offer was made in July, which would mean that the political activity would be dropping out of a race you had already committed to. In fact, I believe that Sestak raised nearly a million dollars, crossing PA for the seat. It’s not that the Administration was trying to keep him from running, it was to get him to stop an action that he was already doing, which certainly qualifies as “political activity.”

Weight of Glory on May 28, 2010 at 7:29 PM

And until recently, I bet Sestak didn’t know about it either…

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Hell is freezing over! This is the first spot on comment I have ever seen you make here at HA… Just goes to show; even a blind squirrel finds an acorn on occasion.

Sestak was pissed off at the moment, angry at Obama for selling him out… Out of anger, he opened up Pandora’s box and the WH has been trying desperately to figure a way out of this since that time. Major Garrett asked the question yesterday which forced Obama further into a corner. Watch this closely crr6, as this is not going to end well for Sestak and all involved. Dozens of people will be called in to testify under oath; one will break off from the group and that will bring on the domino effect. It’s the way it is and the way it should be. Back some years ago, Reagan had a similar problem on his hands. Reagan brought in a team of special prosecutors with strict orders to tell the truth and find the truth no matter what. The truth came out and Reagan had some difficult times. After some time had passed, all was forgiven simply because Reagan demanded the truth, and let the procedure unfold without his participation or meddling.

Obama called slick Willy to the WH for lunch yesterday, and has other tracks all over this scandal. Low and behold, slick Willy takes the position of fall guy the day after having had lunch with Obama. This is not being handled very well, and will not end well for Willy, Obama, Sestak, and all others who lie under oath. The media will spin for Willy as usual, but will fall further down the sewer pipe as the truth comes out.

Keemo on May 28, 2010 at 7:29 PM

No, how is not running in a political race a political activity? Does inactivity count as activity?

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 7:28 PM

No. Withdrawing counts as the activity. If Sestak had withdrawn, his action would be quite different from my inactivity in the PA race. I was never in it.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Sestak looks depressed to me.

Venusian Visitor on May 28, 2010 at 7:31 PM

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,

That shoots “every appointment by every President” right in the head. Not every appointment is made to manipulate an election.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 7:16 PM

Wow, reading comp fail there ddrintn. Do you know what “or” means?

The statute isn’t limited to appointments made in relation to elections.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 7:31 PM

There will be a bloody field day tearing this statement apart. The fun is just beginning.

The War Planner on May 28, 2010 at 7:27 PM

You are obviously forgetting that the Attorney General is Eric Holder, and there is no way in he11 he is going to permit any kind of investigation into this. Eric Holder is as corrupt as they come, nothing to see here, move along…

doriangrey on May 28, 2010 at 7:31 PM

When the individual in question has already publicly stated their intent and filed the appropriate paperwork to run for public office making any kind of offer to entice them to rescind that offer violates 18 U.S.C. 600…

doriangrey on May 28, 2010 at 7:27 PM

Find the court that backs up your interpretation.

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 7:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5