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 4 5

Yea, our imminent Legal Scholar has forgotten about this little thing called Precedent. Judges on the other hand do not forget about it.

doriangrey on May 28, 2010 at 8:27 PM

They also are familiar with this little thing called “federalism.” Unfortunately, you guys don’t seem to understand it.

Weird, I thought you guys loved the 10th Amendment. But I guess you only love it when it’s convenient, huh?

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 8:30 PM

“Badly written laws”= laws that would hurt dem agendas

Immigration Law
Voter Intimidation Laws (but only if it hurts dems)
18 U.S.C. 600

clnurnberg on May 28, 2010 at 8:30 PM

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:18 PM

Do you imagine yourself standing behind a beautiful cherry wood podium, speaking down to the rest of us regular folks? Your divine brilliance shining through the masses like a signal from the Gods above. Do you put on a robe and audition for American Idol Judge vacancy? Do you imagine yourself actually saying something worthy & meaningful at some point in your life?

Oh, what it must be like to be so in love with ones own self.

For me, I’m just glad I can fix my own plumbing & heating.

Keemo on May 28, 2010 at 8:30 PM

Talk about “convenience”

clnurnberg on May 28, 2010 at 8:31 PM

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 8:27 PM

You must of pulled an Icabod Crane since election night 2008 if you are not familiar with this case.

chemman on May 28, 2010 at 8:32 PM

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:29 PM

Bully for you for working for a judge this summer! I wish I’d done that my 1L summer.

These days, it’s just impressive that you found anything.

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 8:32 PM

Their status as lawyers has nothing to do with their ability to govern.

clnurnberg on May 28, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Indeed. Unemployment should be zero about now. The war is supposed to be over by now. Gitmo is supposed to be closed by now. TARP is supposed to have solved the problem by now. ZeroCare will be as carefully managed as the Gulf of Mexico disaster etc. etc.

Zero is supposed to be Harvard Law School’s crowning glory with grades so blindingly wonderful that we can’t see them. With honors so high the clouds obscure them. Yet the narcissistic clown screws up everything he has touched while his battered strumpets who still hide the beating he’s given them continue their struggle to sugarcoat their Arch-dooky of Hope and Change.

viking01 on May 28, 2010 at 8:33 PM

Great, next time I’m writing a bench memo on a federal question case for the Article III judge I work for, I’ll cite all sorts of state court decisions based on state statutes. And tell him that it’s “precedent.” I’m sure he’ll be thrilled.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:29 PM

ROTFLMAO… Next time my ass, I’ll bet no judge in America would accept any bench memo from you, he11 they probably dont even let you get them coffee. At best you are a lowly legal clerk who fetches case files.

doriangrey on May 28, 2010 at 8:34 PM

Zero is supposed to be Harvard Law School’s crowning glory with grades so blindingly wonderful that we can’t see them. With honors so high the clouds obscure them. Yet the narcissistic clown screws up everything he has touched while his battered strumpets who still hide the beating he’s given them continue their struggle to sugarcoat their Arch-dooky of Hope and Change.

viking01 on May 28, 2010 at 8:33 PM

Ha, HLS has Oliver Wendell Holmes, Learned Hand, Felix Frankfurter, Scalia, Louis Brandeis, and Richard Posner as alumni – Obama is TTT at HLS.

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Bully for you for working for a judge this summer! I wish I’d done that my 1L summer.

It’s been a blast so far. It’s a district court judge so I get to sit in on all sorts of settlement conferences, trials etc. when I want a break from writing. He even lets me draft opinions. It’s been weird seeing some of my own writing on Lexis.

These days, it’s just impressive that you found anything.

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 8:32 PM

Yep. A lot of my classmates ended up begging for research assistanships. The 2L job search will be even rougher.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Bill Clinton called me and asked if I’d be interested in working at McDonald’s.

Daggett on May 28, 2010 at 8:38 PM

doriangrey on May 28, 2010 at 8:34 PM

No way that things old enough to drink, let alone write bench memo’s.

Keemo on May 28, 2010 at 8:38 PM

. At best you are a lowly legal clerk who fetches case files.

doriangrey on May 28, 2010 at 8:34 PM

lol.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:38 PM

Which means let’s also investigate every appointment made during the Bush administration, where there’s even a hint that that the person was appointed for political reasons, rather than based upon their competency and qualifications.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Republicans pretty much go through that anyway.

They also are familiar with this little thing called “federalism.” Unfortunately, you guys don’t seem to understand it.

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 8:30 PM

Yes, we know it pretty well. It’s that thing you like to pull out in situations like this, but forget about completely when it comes to Arizona.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 8:40 PM

doriangrey on May 28, 2010 at 8:34 PM

LOL. My daughter worked as a paralegal to put herself through law school. They changed her title to law clerk once she graduated. At that point the attorney’s she worked for knew her well enough to allow her to write many of their legal briefs. I don’t see a judge allowing a 1st year intern to write bench memos but then standards may have fallen since my daughter graduated.

chemman on May 28, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Yes, we know it pretty well. It’s that thing you like to pull out in situations like this, but forget about completely when it comes to Arizona.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 8:40 PM

…. What? We are “pulling out” federalism when it comes to Arizona. We’re arguing that immigration law a responsibility which is traditionally and constitutionally delegated to the federal government, and that AZ’s statute is preempted by federal law.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:42 PM

…. What? We are “pulling out” federalism when it comes to Arizona. We’re arguing that immigration law a responsibility which is traditionally and constitutionally delegated to the federal government, and that AZ’s statute is preempted by federal law.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:42 PM

“Pre-empted” as in being in conflict with Arizona law? I don’t really see any conflict.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 8:43 PM

* in conflict with federal law, that is.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 8:44 PM

I don’t see a judge allowing a 1st year intern to write bench memos but then standards may have fallen since my daughter graduated.

chemman on May 28, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Do you know what a “bench memo” is? It’s just a memo summing up the arguments from both sides and recommending that the judge rule a certain way.

And a lot of my 1L friends already write briefs for the firms that they’re working for this summer. The lawyers just proof-read them and then file them. Your daughter must have sucked.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:44 PM

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:44 PM

No more than you do.

chemman on May 28, 2010 at 8:45 PM

“Pre-empted” as in being in conflict with Arizona law? I don’t really see any conflict.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 8:43 PM

Yeah this is really off topic. Suffice to say, even if the AZ law did “mirror” federal law, it’s still preempted to the extent it burdens federal officials, or to the extent it interferes with the enforcement and administration of federal law.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:46 PM

At any rate, there’s no longer any question in my mind as to why the legal profession sucks.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 8:46 PM

Suffice to say, even if the AZ law did “mirror” federal law, it’s still preempted to the extent it burdens federal officials, or to the extent it interferes with the enforcement and administration of federal law.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:46 PM

Still no conflict.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 8:47 PM

No more than you do.

chemman on May 28, 2010 at 8:45 PM

Hey, whatever. Just know that it’s very common for 1L’s, and especially 2L’s to write briefs for firms (as long as the attorney’s go over them and proof-read them of course). It’s pretty weird they didn’t let your daughter write anything until she graduated.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:47 PM

Still no conflict.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 8:47 PM

You’re going to have to say something more than that if you want a response.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:48 PM

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 8:46 PM

Cracking me up! Bingo

Keemo on May 28, 2010 at 8:49 PM

Still no conflict.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 8:47 PM

You’re going to have to say something more than that if you want a response.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:48 PM

You’re going to have to show where the AZ law “burdens federal officials”, especially since it’s essentially a reaffirmation of federal laws already on the books, or where it interferes with the enforcement of federal law.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 8:50 PM

At any rate, there’s no longer any question in my mind as to why the legal profession sucks.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 8:46 PM

“Those who can’t do, teach.”

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Yet by being a proper shill you miss the fact that those names and Zero may have at different times inhabited the same classrooms yet apparently have little else (thankfully for them) in common with Zero. Just as traveling to Berchtesgaden won’t make you Adolf or visiting the Medici Palace won’t make you Lorenzo.

Not good enough to excuse Zero’s continuous demonstration that he is obviously odd man out like John Kerry and his medals.

viking01 on May 28, 2010 at 8:51 PM

“Those who can’t do, teach.”

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:51 PM

So you’re planning to be a teacher like Proud Rino eh…

doriangrey on May 28, 2010 at 8:52 PM

You’re going to have to show where the AZ law “burdens federal officials”, especially since it’s essentially a reaffirmation of federal laws already on the books, or where it interferes with the enforcement of federal law.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 8:50 PM

Well, for one thing, the Feds may be required to devote resources to process and expel those arrested by Arizona.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:53 PM

Those who can’t do, teach.”

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Which likely explains why Zero was an instructor before becoming a failed community activist before becoming a failed ACORN lawyer before becoming Carter the Second.

With what Zero has done to the economy your classmates had best prepare for lots more begging.

viking01 on May 28, 2010 at 8:55 PM

I wish Proud Rhino and crr6 would just get a room.

gordo on May 28, 2010 at 8:56 PM

gordo on May 28, 2010 at 8:56 PM

I figured Axelrod had already supplied his basement, if not Barney Frank.

viking01 on May 28, 2010 at 8:59 PM

as long as the attorney’s go over them

Oh dear.

Ted Torgerson on May 28, 2010 at 9:02 PM

Why would you take intelligence advice from Sestak?

He bragged “I’m not a crook like those sleazy White House Democrats who are trying to bribe me with a job. I’m Mr. Integrity!”

But he didn’t even think through what would happen if he won. How smart is that? That’s Strategery 101 Fail.

The Clintons have left stench trail across the American political landscape like a slug on the sidewalk or the soft spot over the septic tank. But Obama is surpassing them.

Ironically, Sestak, trying to prove his integrity, is now up to his neck in the same stinking swamp as the rest of the alligators.

Noel on May 28, 2010 at 9:16 PM

Finally, after all of the so called birther’s complaints and unsuccessful attempts to out the “president” because he is NOT a natural born citizen, Obama is coming down hard because of his felonious Chicago-style tactics; and due also to Obama’s infamous heavy-handed no-holds-barred campaigning for his health care plan.

OBAMA FINALLY GOT HIS TIT IN THE RINGER.

Several months ago, Obama was facing certain embarrassment if his health-care plan had failed. Obama therefore campaigned hard to get every Senate vote that he could — promising ANYTHING to ANYONE that would help him. Double-crossing dirt-bag Arlen Specter crossed his own morals, his reputation, and his party to help Obama. Anything to get re-elected. So he dealt with the Devil (Obama) and it seems that the deal included the Devil trying to help get Specter re-elected at any cost.

For Obama that meant, when the time came, he would make Sestak an offer he might accept in exchange for dropping out of the primary against Specter. Note that Bill Clinton, White House Councel, Obama, and others in this fiasco are attorneys. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Talk is that patsy Bill Clinton was the one who approached Sestak to try and talk him out of running against Obama’s darling, Arlen Specter, in exchange for a high-ranking job in the White House.

What makes it patently clear that Obama and Bauer are dishonest in their reply is that Bill Clinton is NOT, as Sestak has claimed, a White House official able to fit the description given of who contacted Sestak, according to Sestak. Furthermore, you have to be an idiot to believe that the “job offer” to Sestak was simply a non-paying adviser job???? This instead of becoming a Senator with Senator’s pay and prestige? Me thinks the offer from Obama was one of a “higher” kind of job inside the White House. Can you spell f-e-l-o-n-y? Can you spell j-a-i-l t-i-m-e for Obama.

Consider that Bill Clinton is NOT a White House official. “Sestak told a Philadelphia television anchor Larry Kane he had received a job offer from the White House…” – rightpundits.com: http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=5926.

Is the Obama Administration lying? The Philadelphia Journal reported on Feb. 19, 2010, “A White House spokesman this morning strongly denied Sestak had been offered (a job) yesterday. Before the spokesman issued the denial a senior Pennsylvania Democrat yesterday said White House officials there were angered by Sestak’s account.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20100219_Sestak_says_federal_job_was_offered_to_quit_race.html#axzz0pH303t4O.

Today, May 28th, 2010, Obama admits there was an (illegal and felonious) offer of a high-position job made to Sestak to encourage him to leave the race (is this election tampering, too). Actions taken by Obama are illegal and punishable by impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Although I believe that Obama is NOT the legitimate president, Congress may not need to impeach him, just merely walk his butt over to the nearest jail house.

AdrianS on May 28, 2010 at 9:18 PM

Bill Dandy to the rescue!
Bill Dandy to the rescue!
Bill Dandy to the rescue!
Go, Bill Dandy! Go, Bill Dandy!

He was sittin’ there in his office on a Harlen building top
Stainin’ dresses till he was about to drop
Obama came on bended knee, his presidency on a runaway course
Uh huh, that’s right, of course
Bill Dandy to the rescue!
Go, Bill Dandy! Go, Bill Dandy!

Cheshire Cat on May 28, 2010 at 9:19 PM

Well, for one thing, the Feds may be required to devote resources to process and expel those arrested by Arizona.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:53 PM

They s/b following the law and do their job in the first place.

You, of all the people, s/b for following laws.

Schadenfreude on May 28, 2010 at 9:24 PM

This from a poster on Ace:

“It took the new Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Mike Mullen, less than 24 hours to dump one of the most disliked officers among the Navy’s top brass. Vice-Admiral Joe Sestak, an arrogant and obnoxious “bully-boy,” who delighted in being rude and unreasonable and getting away with it, found he was expendable the minute his mentor went out the door.”
Anyone have any additional info on this?
Is he still married to the same woman, his child looks very young for someone with a career in the military?

Bambi on May 28, 2010 at 9:29 PM

You, of all the people, s/b for following laws.

Schadenfreude on May 28, 2010 at 9:24 PM

I think he is following one of Murphy’s laws.

The probability of crr6 being observed is in direct proportion to the stupidity of his actions.

– or maybe -

The difference between crr6′s stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.

Lawrence Talbot on May 28, 2010 at 9:34 PM

18 U.S.C. § 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

18 U.S.C. § 211 – Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office

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 U.S.C. § 595 – Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments

Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

This section shall not prohibit or make unlawful any act by any officer or employee of any educational or research institution, establishment, agency, or system which is supported in whole or in part by any state or political subdivision thereof, or by the District of Columbia or by any Territory or Possession of the United States; or by any recognized religious, philanthropic or cultural organization.

michellemalkin.com

Keemo on May 28, 2010 at 9:38 PM

Come on now. Didn’t everyone know that Obama is as big, if not a bigger, liar than Bill Clinton? “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

Impeaching Barack Obama and then removing him could not have been dreamed of as being easy-as-pie.

But what if Obama is not a natural born citizen? Perhaps the D.C. police or the FBI can just walk Obama’s lying butt on over to the nearest jailhouse.

AdrianS on May 28, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Of course Clinton dodges. He’s never told the truth about anything…the closest he comes to the truth is to dodge.

MainelyRight on May 28, 2010 at 10:05 PM

I’m just glad to hear the real story. This adds up.

AnninCA on May 28, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Win-Win. Move on.

AnninCA on May 28, 2010 at 10:17 PM

At any rate, there’s no longer any question in my mind as to why the legal profession sucks.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 8:46 PM

“Those who can’t do, teach.”

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 8:51 PM

“And those who can’t teach become _______” You can feel free to fill it in with “attorneys” if you like.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 10:23 PM

^ Anyway, I never claimed any sort of superiority for teachers the way you and Proud Rino do for law students. I’m well aware of why the teaching profession sucks.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 10:26 PM

Makes me want to throw up. Someone got to him, and now his story has changed. Disgusting!

Chewy the Lab on May 28, 2010 at 10:28 PM

^ Anyway, I never claimed any sort of superiority for teachers the way you and Proud Rino do for law students.

Where have we claimed our profession is “superior”? What happens is, there are a lot of legal topics on HA and so we run circles around you because we know more about those particular topics. Because we went/go to law school. So I can see how we’d come off as “snobby” or something, but that doesn’t mean I think my profession is superior in any way. In fact, I have a great deal of respect for teachers.

I’m well aware of why the teaching profession sucks.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 10:26 PM

Well that’s too bad that you think that.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 10:32 PM

“And those who can’t teach become _______”

I believe what you’re looking for, is:
“Those who can’t teach, teach gym.”

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Although I believe that Obama is NOT the legitimate president, Congress may not need to impeach him, just merely walk his butt over to the nearest jail house.

AdrianS on May 28, 2010 at 9:18 PM

All I can say is that I hope Sestak, and anyone else close to him, stays well away from Ft. Marcy Park.

Chewy the Lab on May 28, 2010 at 10:33 PM

Makes me want to throw up. Someone got to him, and now his story has changed. Disgusting!

Chewy the Lab on May 28, 2010 at 10:28 PM

He probably embellished it before so that he could look more “mavericky”.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 10:33 PM

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 10:33 PM

That would certainly bolster your MO…but I’m athinkin’…Nope!

Chewy the Lab on May 28, 2010 at 10:38 PM

But if Sestak lied to Kane, it would seriously hurt his chances in the Senate election against Toomey, so somebody (at least Toomey) should press Sestak about this–why did Sestak tell Kane that the White House offered him a “high-ranking” job if it wasn’t true? Can Sestak then be trusted in the Senate?

Steve Z on May 28, 2010 at 7:44 PM

Toomey rightfully is campaigning on the issues that affect PA, areas where he is to the right of Sestak. Toomey is letting the others in the party and on the ethics committee pursue the legal ins and outs of Sestak’s claims and now refutations re the WH offer. Toomey is correct to focus his campaign this way.

onlineanalyst on May 28, 2010 at 10:43 PM

Where have we claimed our profession is “superior”? What happens is, there are a lot of legal topics on HA and so we run circles around you because we know more about those particular topics.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 10:32 PM

No, you don’t.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 10:46 PM

Interesting tweets from John King:

WH source: prez didnt know about rahm/clinton/sestak talks until recent days; GOP pressing for more details.

WH memo lacks important details. Source says COS Emanuel did not check with counsel office before enlisting Clinton. #sestak

Svl other WH aides knew of Emanuel/Clinton effort. WH memo doesn’t mention. #sestak

Weight of Glory on May 28, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Mr Hands-On Messiah didn’t know about it? My my. Sounds like the usual ass-covering to me.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 10:48 PM

Mr Hands-On Messiah didn’t know about it? My my. Sounds like the usual ass-covering to me.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 10:48 PM

Yeah. Assuming King’s source isn’t just bs-ing, it looks like the Clinton buffer may not be big enough, and they need to throw the “hear/see/speak no evil” kitchen sink.

Weight of Glory on May 28, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Where have we claimed our profession is “superior”? What happens is, there are a lot of legal topics on HA and so we run circles around you because we know more about those particular topics.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 10:32 PM

No, you don’t.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 10:46 PM

I’ll expand on that a little. All you and Proud Rino do is throw around a few inkhorn terms here and there along with bits of sophistry, and blammo: we’re so much better than those ignorant Palinbot peasants. You both come off as poseurs.

“And those who can’t teach become _______”

I believe what you’re looking for, is:
“Those who can’t teach, teach gym.”

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Yeah, than can fit as well. Then there’s also the old joke “What’s the difference between a catfish and a lawyer?” “One’s a scum-sucking bottom-feeder and the other one’s a fish.”

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 10:54 PM

Weight of Glory on May 28, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Um, “Big”, “Giant,” “Humungus,” “Gargantuan,” “Huge,” U-ber”…Wow, IMO, the whole, “Pshaw! Billy Jeff just sorta floated this idea of a non-paying position and then immediately dropped it on-a-counta Rahm is such a danged kidder” stuff makes the early days of Watergate look like, um, the early days of Watergate.
This chit isn’t even gettin’ warmed up yet. Stay tuned boys and girls…and I’m a thinkin’ the cover up–or the exposing there of–is going to be pretty jaw dropping.

‘C’mon! Who do these people really think we are????

Chewy the Lab on May 28, 2010 at 10:55 PM

from NRO re Toomey:

Toomey: Innocent? ‘Took Three Months to Say So’ [Robert Costa]

GOP Senate candidate Pat Toomey on the Sestak-Clinton news:

“If this explanation is as innocent as it looks, I sure don’t know why it took three months to say so. The White House and Congressman Sestak should have been forthcoming a lot sooner. As I’ve said many times, this job offer issue is not my focus, and it’s not where Pennsylvanians want the focus of the campaign to be.

“The job offer that is most important to me is the job offer that is extended to unemployed Pennsylvanians trying to support their families. I want to be discussing key issues like the bailouts, which Joe Sestak has strongly supported and I’ve strongly opposed; the national health care disaster, which Joe Sestak strongly supports and I oppose; and the massive runaway spending in Washington, which he supports and I oppose. As far as I’m concerned, I would rather pursue those topics than any insider deal between Congressman Sestak and the White House.”

As long as Sestak has to continue answering questions by Issa and his committee and by any tenacious journalists who are not going to buy this slick escape hatch, Sestak will be consuming his time and energies addressing the “job offer” and not campaigning.

onlineanalyst on May 28, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Yeah, than can fit as well. Then there’s also the old joke “What’s the difference between a catfish and a lawyer?” “One’s a scum-sucking bottom-feeder and the other one’s a fish.”

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 10:54 PM

Hey, Dude, how’s about you don’t feed the dang troll?
I’m not saying he’s not a lawyer, but let’s just say I wouldn’t put money on the other side of the table either. Just leave it alone. Yawn!
One thing I will concede here is that this scum-sucking-bottom-feeder has a whole bunch more in common with a carp than a shark.

Chewy the Lab on May 28, 2010 at 11:02 PM

Hey, Dude, how’s about you don’t feed the dang troll?
I’m not saying he’s not a lawyer, but let’s just say I wouldn’t put money on the other side of the table either. Just leave it alone. Yawn!

Chewy the Lab on May 28, 2010 at 11:02 PM

You don’t have to read it.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 11:04 PM

I would be stunned if Bill Clinton was willing to go under the bus for Sestak. The dude ran his mouth and created a huge mess, and I hope he has to stew in it. Sestak’s a real scum bag, and I hope PA voters get a great chance to find that out.

funky chicken on May 28, 2010 at 11:07 PM

The Justice Dept. is not necessary for further investigation into this matter. The Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett (R), has the authority to initiate grand jury proceedings.

diogenes on May 28, 2010 at 11:08 PM

But if Sestak lied to Kane, it would seriously hurt his chances in the Senate election against Toomey, so somebody (at least Toomey) should press Sestak about this–why did Sestak tell Kane that the White House offered him a “high-ranking” job if it wasn’t true? Can Sestak then be trusted in the Senate?

Steve Z on May 28, 2010 at 7:44 PM

100% agree. Sestak looks like a grandiose douchebag telling fish stories. Everybody knows somebody like that, and damn few would chose to vote for him, IMHO.

funky chicken on May 28, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Where have we claimed our profession is “superior”? What happens is, there are a lot of legal topics on HA and so we run circles around you because we know more about those particular topics.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 10:32 PM

No, you don’t.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 10:46 PM

We really do though. There have been countless things said by you and others on this thread that were absolutely, objectively, mind numbingly stupid. A prime example is the fact that you all thought Weight of Glory “smacked down” PR by citing a case from NJ, based on an entirely different statute. You’d be laughed out of court if you tried that in real life. If I cited that in bench memo or draft opinion the clerks in my chamber would be think it was some sort of typo.

And it’s not really your fault either. You’re a teacher, or something. And that’s fine. I’m sure you know much more about education-related things. And of course you’re perfectly entitled to your opinion on legal topics. But just know that they’re often wrong.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 11:31 PM

the clerks in my chamber would be think it was some sort of typo.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 11:31 PM

There was a sort of typo :)….from someone who hurries a lot and makes them, often.

Schadenfreude on May 28, 2010 at 11:44 PM

…so if Tom Corbett (PA Attorney General running for Governor) appoints a certain former prosecutor who will not be reelecteeeeeed to investigate this….will we have to retire the phrase “awesomely awesome” because nothing could possibly be greater??

das411 on May 28, 2010 at 11:47 PM

Either Sestak is lying or the Obama White House has been spending a little too much time studying the John Mitchell approach to running an administration.

Smells like 1973 all over again…

JEM on May 28, 2010 at 11:49 PM

I loathe Obama and would love a Republican landslide in 2010 as a repudiation of his policies. However, if the Republican Party wishes to pursue this absolutely asinine non-issue, I’m going to vote straight ticket Democrat in retaliation. If the charges against Obama are true, the law is crazy. Impeaching Obama on this basis, would be like trying to impeach Obama because in some crazy moment Congress passed a law against drinking water, and Obama drank some water.

There is no way that pursuing this issue will contribute to the sanity of our politics. And I think if we are going to talk about unintended consequences, we should be aware that the Democratic retaliation against this is going to be really nasty. And it’s going to suck up the time we could be explaining why capitalism is such a good thing.

thuja on May 28, 2010 at 11:53 PM

CCr6, you mentioned the Arizona law mirroring the federal law and you correctly said the fed laws outrankes the state law. What would you think if Arizona or even the Feds adopting Mexican, Canadian or any other nation in the world its immigration laws? Would you have to study a littled to find out what they are? You have to admit the US has the most liberal immigration laws of any nation in the world. Would you think the UN or other world orgs. would condemn the US for adopting what everyone else has? Sorry to be off topic here but I was just wondering.

garydt on May 28, 2010 at 11:53 PM

I’ll bet Slick Clintoon is royally peeved that the Supreme Court nomination he bargained to get from Obama may hit the skids should a prosecutor investigate if that was his part of the bribe to peddle Zero’s offer to Sestak?

viking01 on May 28, 2010 at 11:53 PM

A prime example is the fact that you all thought Weight of Glory “smacked down” PR by citing a case from NJ, based on an entirely different statute. You’d be laughed out of court if you tried that in real life. If I cited that in bench memo or draft opinion the clerks in my chamber would be think it was some sort of typo.

What was utterly smacked down was Proud Rino’s idiotic notion that withdrawing from a political race was “inactivity”.

And it’s not really your fault either. You’re a teacher, or something. And that’s fine. I’m sure you know much more about education-related things. And of course you’re perfectly entitled to your opinion on legal topics. But just know that they’re often wrong.

crr6 on May 28, 2010 at 11:31 PM

Ninety-five percent of the non-lawyers who post here know far more about the Constitution and its history (to include relevant cases) than either of you ever will. You’re far too wrapped up in trying to sound all cute and lawyerly.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 11:55 PM

JEM on May 28, 2010 at 11:49 PM

How dare you question Chief Justice crr6 and The Whitehouse!

Don’t you know all law and history came into being when crr6 was born?

tetriskid on May 28, 2010 at 11:59 PM

There was a sort of typo :)….from someone who hurries a lot and makes them, often.

Schadenfreude on May 28, 2010 at 11:44 PM

Guilty as charged : )

CCr6, you mentioned the Arizona law mirroring the federal law and you correctly said the fed laws outrankes the state law.

Right. The Supremacy Clause.

What would you think if Arizona or even the Feds adopting Mexican, Canadian or any other nation in the world its immigration laws? Would you have to study a littled to find out what they are?

Yeah.

You have to admit the US has the most liberal immigration laws of any nation in the world.

I don’t “have to admit” that. I haven’t studied every nation’s immigration laws.

Would you think the UN or other world orgs. would condemn the US for adopting what everyone else has? Sorry to be off topic here but I was just wondering.

garydt on May 28, 2010 at 11:53 PM

Idk. I suppose that that the United States has developed a sort of reputation as an “immigrant nation” the vast majority of the posters here are ancestors of immigrants. Part of our national identity comes from our “liberal” immigration laws. “Gives us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses” etc etc

Ninety-five percent of the non-lawyers who post here know far more about the Constitution and its history (to include relevant cases) than either of you ever will.

No, that’s just flatly incorrect. It’s a sort of sad feature of the contemporary conservative mindset, that they think just because they believe in a roughly 30-40 year old, deeply flawed method of constitutional interpretation (original intent) which is rarely used in practice, that they have some sort of unique understanding the “true” meaning of the Constitution.

Although l like how you randomly chose “95%” though. Because 96% would just be ridiculous!

You’re far too wrapped up in trying to sound all cute and lawyerly.

ddrintn on May 28, 2010 at 11:55 PM

Thanks for saying that I sound like I know what I’m talking about. I wish I could say the same for you.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 12:14 AM

Thanks for saying that I sound like I know what I’m talking about. I wish I could say the same for you.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 12:14 AM

How soon we forget:

Southerners didn’t have to hide behind any mantra, nor did any other section of the country. There was Plessy v. Ferguson.

ddrintn on September 27, 2009 at 12:47 AM

….which had nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.

crr6 on September 27, 2009 at 12:55 AM

The Court held that segregation in public schools is constitutional. They didn’t rule on the remaining Jim Crow laws. You still seem to have trouble grasping this.

crr6 on September 27, 2009 at 1:29 AM

Plessy v Ferguson had nothing to do initially with education. You seem to have trouble grasping this. It was about segregation down the line.

ddrintn on September 27, 2009 at 1:31 AM

Seriously, it’s astounding how ignorant people are on civil rights issues here. Or just general legal issues for that matter.

crr6 on September 27, 2009 at 1:17 AM

Plessy v. Ferguson was the result of the challenge to a Jim Crow law. As a result of the Supreme Court decision in this case, the Jim Crow laws were shielded from further challenge by the highest court in the land. Note the section in the cited Wikipedia article under “Early Attempts to Break Jim Crow”.

A law may be illegitimate (not legitimate) when viewed in the context of our Constitution. The Supreme Court is the arbitor of legality, and was so in this case.

When you point the finger and accuse someone of ignorance, be careful of the three fingers which point back.

unclesmrgol on September 27, 2009 at 1:33 AM

That was one of the more memorable instances of your vast and superior constitutional knowledge on display.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 12:23 AM

Thanks for saying that I sound like I know what I’m talking about. I wish I could say the same for you.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 12:14 AM

ROTFLMAO… That’s not what he said, he said you sound like a child pretending to know something you obviously dont.

doriangrey on May 29, 2010 at 12:28 AM

What was utterly smacked down was Proud Rino’s idiotic notion that withdrawing from a political race was “inactivity”.

Yes, that’s right, not campaigning for political office is political activity. According to you, not doing political activity is political activity. In other news, up is down. Cats are dogs. Left now means right.

It must be convenient when the words just mean whatever you’d like them to mean.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 12:29 AM

Yes, that’s right, not campaigning for political office is political activity.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 12:29 AM

No, withdrawing from a race to benefit another candidate is an activity, as the NJ case showed.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 12:31 AM

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 12:23 AM

Dude, the fact that you have people’s posts saved from, like, 8 months ago, just waiting for the right moment to make someone look bad would normally be the most depressing thing I’ve seen all night, but the f-ing Celtics won the Eastern Conference, so this is just the second most depressing thing I’ve seen tonight.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 12:32 AM

No, withdrawing from a race to benefit another candidate is an activity, as the NJ case showed.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 12:31 AM

Right, the NJ case, which was INTERPRETING A DIFFERENT STATUTE.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 12:33 AM

Dude, the fact that you have people’s posts saved from, like, 8 months ago, just waiting for the right moment to make someone look bad would normally be the most depressing thing I’ve seen all night…

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 12:32 AM

I don’t save. I know how to use a search engine. It’s not all that hard.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 12:34 AM

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 12:23 AM

Wow, you need to go back nearly a year to find me saying something incorrect on legal matters, when I’ve been posting on them constantly? Pretty bad. I could point to at least 4 or 5 examples of you doing the same in this very thread.

Also note that later in that thread I said that I had simply forgotten that the case was about railroad cars and not education, and I admitted my mistake. You’d do well to do the same.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 12:35 AM

Right, the NJ case, which was INTERPRETING A DIFFERENT STATUTE.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 12:33 AM

But which nevertheless didn’t accept your cats-are-not-non-dogs argument, which makes it at least a little doubtful that any other court would either.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 12:35 AM

But which nevertheless didn’t accept your cats-are-not-non-dogs argument, which makes it at least a little doubtful that any other court would either.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 12:35 AM

Who knows that the statute even said? At least post the statute and show that it has similar language before you say something like that.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 12:37 AM

Wow, you need to go back nearly a year to find me saying something incorrect on legal matters, when I’ve been posting on them constantly? Pretty bad. I could point to at least 4 or 5 examples of you doing the same in this very thread.

Wrong on matters of fact, or opinion? And you haven’t been posting on them constantly. If you have, I haven’t seen them.

Also note that later in that thread I said that I had simply forgotten that the case was about railroad cars and not education, and I admitted my mistake. You’d do well to do the same.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 12:35 AM

Yeah, right. You were ignorant of a basic fact. While sitting there with your snot-nosed “all those poor ignoramuses” shtick.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 12:38 AM

But which nevertheless didn’t accept your cats-are-not-non-dogs argument, which makes it at least a little doubtful that any other court would either.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 12:35 AM

No, that’s totally irrelevant, because IT’S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT STATUTE.

You don’t know what the New Jersey statute says. It could have said something much different. It may not have been written the same way, so that the distinction between what is political activity and what is not may not have mattered. I don’t care about a New Jersey statute, we’re talking about a federal statute.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM

Who knows that the statute even said? At least post the statute and show that it has similar language before you say something like that.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 12:37 AM

What? I would’ve thought your encyclopedic legal mind would’ve already spit out the relevant statue.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 12:40 AM

No, that’s totally irrelevant, because IT’S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT STATUTE.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM

OK, then. Based on statute, what are your grounds for saying that Sestak’s withdrawal from the race in exchange for any sort of job or position or whatever constitutes “inactivity”?

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 12:41 AM

Wrong on matters of fact, or opinion?

Both, really. And just general rules of legal authority, which i thought were pretty intuitive. Like “a state court’s interpretation of a state statute isn’t a persuasive authority for an entirely separate federal statute.”

And you haven’t been posting on them constantly. If you have, I haven’t seen them.

On legal topics? Probably 90% of my posts are on them. More recently the Arizona immigration law and the debates over the CRA of 1964.

Yeah, right. You were ignorant of a basic fact.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 12:38 AM

Obviously I knew that Plessy is about railroads. I’ve read it at least 3 or 4 times. I just made a mental error. Believe it or not, I’m human. And I admitted my mistake 5 minutes later. Again, you would do well to follow that example from time to time.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 12:43 AM

Who knows that the statute even said? At least post the statute and show that it has similar language before you say something like that.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 12:37 AM

What? I would’ve thought your encyclopedic legal mind would’ve already spit out the relevant statue.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 12:40 AM

Why don’t you look something up for once? You’re the one making the positive argument that the statute is relevant. Prove it.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 12:45 AM

Obviously I knew that Plessy is about railroads. I’ve read it at least 3 or 4 times.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 12:43 AM

Oh, OK, that explains the 10-post lecture on MY ignorance of the subject. Yeah right.

Couple of pretentious poseurs.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 12:47 AM

OK, then. Based on statute, what are your grounds for saying that Sestak’s withdrawal from the race in exchange for any sort of job or position or whatever constitutes “inactivity”?

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 12:41 AM

I’m not saying it constitutes inactivity in the literal sense of the word, I’m saying that it’s not a political activity. A political activity is campaigning for someone, or endorsing a candidate, or fundraising, or writing letters. Not doing any of those things, however, is not a political activity.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 12:52 AM

Railroads aside, there was this in that exchange:

Yep, you’re right. I don’t know how I forgot that, but I did. It’s still true that Brown dealt with just segregation in public schools, so Brown itself couldn’t invalidate all Jim Crow laws.

crr6 on September 27, 2009 at 1:38 AM

It most definitely could, and did. It destroyed the “separate but equal” foundation on which Plessy rested.

ddrintn on September 27, 2009 at 1:40 AM

Don’t bother with the “I’m so above these poor ignorant schlubs” garbage, really.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 12:52 AM

A political activity is campaigning for someone, or endorsing a candidate, or fundraising, or writing letters. Not doing any of those things, however, is not a political activity.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 12:52 AM

What’s the statutory basis for that definition?

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 12:53 AM

Oh, OK, that explains the 10-post lecture on MY ignorance of the subject. Yeah right.

Yeah, it does. Do you want to discuss it now?
How do you feel about the majorities reliance on the “reasonableness” of the law as justification for it’s Constitutionality? What about their deference to the traditional customs and usages of the people in determining reasonableness? Do you agree with Harlan’s view that Court’s shouldn’t be involved in reasonableness inquiries? Do you see Plessy as an early antecedent to Lochner?

What about Harlan’s dissent? How do you reconcile his references to a “color-blind” constitution with his other allusions to the Reconstruction amendments as imposing a positive duty for the federal government to improve the lives of former slaves, by (among other things) removing “badges of slavery”? Isn’t there a tension between those two views? How can you remove “badges of slavery” without paying attention to color?

As to the facts of the case, why do you think Plessy was chosen as a Plaintiff?

Couple of pretentious poseurs.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 12:47 AM

Again, you’re the one posting extensively on a subject you know relatively about. If this were a topic on education, I wouldn’t do the same.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 12:53 AM

Yep, you’re right. I don’t know how I forgot that, but I did. It’s still true that Brown dealt with just segregation in public schools, so Brown itself couldn’t invalidate all Jim Crow laws.

crr6 on September 27, 2009 at 1:38 AM

It most definitely could, and did. It destroyed the “separate but equal” foundation on which Plessy rested.

ddrintn on September 27, 2009 at 1:40 AM

…what I said was true. If you read Brown, the holding relates to segregation in public education. Much of the reasoning was based upon the psychological effect of segregation on children during their formative years. Brown itself didn’t instantly invalidate every Jim Crow law, although it certainly weakened the constitutional basis for them.

The remaining Jim Crow laws weren’t disposed of until later Supreme Court decisions, the CRA of 1964, and the VRA of 1965.

Care to admit you’re wrong now?

I’d bet not.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 12:59 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5