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

I looked up the NJ statute, sorry for the weird formatting, NJ has the worst website of all time.

2C:27-2.� Bribery in official and political matters
��� A person is guilty of bribery if he directly or indirectly offers, confers or agrees to confer upon another, or solicits, accepts or agrees to accept from� another:

��� a.� Any benefit as consideration for a decision, opinion, recommendation, vote or exercise of discretion of a public servant, party official or voter on any public issue or in any public election;�

LOL. I accept your apology.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:00 AM

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?

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 12:53 AM

Awwww, look. It can read a syllabus.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:01 AM

I looked up the NJ statute, sorry for the weird formatting, NJ has the worst website of all time.

2C:27-2.� Bribery in official and political matters
��� A person is guilty of bribery if he directly or indirectly offers, confers or agrees to confer upon another, or solicits, accepts or agrees to accept from� another:

��� a.� Any benefit as consideration for a decision, opinion, recommendation, vote or exercise of discretion of a public servant, party official or voter on any public issue or in any public election;�

LOL. I accept your apology.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:00 AM

Apology for what? There’s nothing there upholding your view of “political activity”.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:03 AM

What’s the statutory basis for that definition?

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 12:53 AM

Seriously, I’m not going to keep explaining to you the difference between doing something and not doing something. I don’t know how to say it any other way.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:03 AM

Apology for what? There’s nothing there upholding your view of “political activity”.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:03 AM

Yeah, there’s nothing in there about political activities at all! As a matter of fact, whether or not something was a political activity was totally irrelevant to that particular case!

And that was your smackdown. That was all you had.

Better luck next time, champ.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:05 AM

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.

thuja on May 28, 2010 at 11:53 PM

Remember when Martha Stewart owned some stock in a drug company and got wind that a drug the company had been working on was not going to be approved and she sold it? She didn’t go to prison for that, she went to prison for lying to the FBI that that is what she did. IMHO, Barry and Bubba and Joe stepped knee-high into it today. I just got done watching a video of an interview with Scarborough and Sestak from a long time ago where Joe asks about being offered the position of Secretary of the Navy and Sestak answers, like Joe’s point was a given.

Marcus on May 29, 2010 at 1:07 AM

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

No, the mind-numbingly stupid thing was PR trying to explain that dropping out of a race isn’t a political activity, then equating it to somebody who was never running in the first place. Oh, and then putting some sort of time requirement on it. You know, because inactivity suddenly becomes activity within two weeks of the election.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:09 AM

Seriously, I’m not going to keep explaining to you the difference between doing something and not doing something. I don’t know how to say it any other way.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:03 AM

Dropping out of a race is “doing something.” I don’t know how to say that any other way.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:10 AM

2C:27-2.� Bribery in official and political matters
��� A person is guilty of bribery if he directly or indirectly offers, confers or agrees to confer upon another, or solicits, accepts or agrees to accept from� another:

��� a.� Any benefit as consideration for a decision, opinion, recommendation, vote or exercise of discretion of a public servant, party official or voter on any public issue or in any public election;�

Well if you take out all those letters, and add new letters, then it’s exactly like the federal statute!

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:11 AM

Hey guys, if you pay a cop $100 bucks to not write you a ticket, you didn’t bribe him. Because not writing a ticket isn’t a police activity. So it couldn’t be a bribe!

Don’t you wingnut Palinbots understand the difference between doing something and not doing something?!/1! Epic fail and laugh to self, lololol.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:13 AM

You know, because inactivity suddenly becomes activity within two weeks of the election.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:09 AM

Yes, asking someone not to enter a primary is the exact same thing as trying to get someone to drop out of a race once it’s too late to nominate anyone else. Recognizing that there is a distinction between these two things is, according to you, “mind-numbingly stupid.”

No, the mind-numbingly stupid thing was PR trying to explain that dropping out of a race isn’t a political activity, then equating it to somebody who was never running in the first place.

Had Sestak even filed yet? Do you have a link for that source or are you just pulling that out of thin air? Because, if you did, that would be “mind-numbingly stupid,” and I know how much you hate it when things are so stupid that they numb your mind, right B+?

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:13 AM

Awwww, look. It can read a syllabus.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:01 AM

The syllabus talks about Lochner? Wow. Prophetic.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:13 AM

Well if you take out all those letters, and add new letters, then it’s exactly like the federal statute!

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:11 AM

Explain how dropping out of a race isn’t a political activity. Except if you do it really close to an election, because then it suddenly is.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:14 AM

Apology for what? There’s nothing there upholding your view of “political activity”.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:03 AM

Woah. Fastest goal-posts move eva.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:14 AM

Care to admit you’re wrong now?

I’d bet not.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 12:59 AM

No. Brown v. Board smashed away the “separate but equal” foundations. It paved the way for the Civil Rights acts. Saying that Brown v Board was only about school desegregation is like saying Plessy was only about railway accommodations.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:15 AM

Hey guys, if you pay a cop $100 bucks to not write you a ticket, you didn’t bribe him. Because not writing a ticket isn’t a police activity. So it couldn’t be a bribe!

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:13 AM

A different law would cover that. 18 USC 201, to be precise. See, there are lots of different circumstances, and there are many laws which cover several different types of circumstances.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:17 AM

No, the mind-numbingly stupid thing was PR trying to explain that dropping out of a race isn’t a political activity, then equating it to somebody who was never running in the first place. Oh, and then putting some sort of time requirement on it. You know, because inactivity suddenly becomes activity within two weeks of the election.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:09 AM

Exactly.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:17 AM

Apology for what? There’s nothing there upholding your view of “political activity”.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:03 AM

Woah. Fastest goal-posts move eva.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:14 AM

That’s what the discussion is about: Proud Rino’s Great Inactivity Theory.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:19 AM

Yes, asking someone not to enter a primary is the exact same thing as trying to get someone to drop out of a race once it’s too late to nominate anyone else. Recognizing that there is a distinction between these two things is, according to you, “mind-numbingly stupid.”

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:13 AM

That would be nice if that was what you actually said.

If Barack Obama dropped out of the presidential election in December of 2007 because of a promise made by Hillary Clinton, then that’s fine. But if he dropped out of the presidential race on November 1, 2008, because John McCain cuts a deal with him then that’s not OK.

Proud Rino on May 28, 2010 at 8:02 PM

Pretty sure Obama was running as of December 2007. But at that point, dropping out would be cool. But in November of 2008? Totally not cool. Rock solid logic, PR.

You really are a mealy-mouthed little weasel, PR. If you put on a silver hairpiece maybe you can sub for Big Dog.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:19 AM

Explain how dropping out of a race isn’t a political activity. Except if you do it really close to an election, because then it suddenly is.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:14 AM

I actually haven’t been arguing that point much. And I don’t think it’s particularly relevant…mainly because the language of the statute says…

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

So the “political activity” language isn’t necessarily what implicates Sestak et al. here, it’s the “in connection with any primary election” language. It’s tough to argue that offering the position wasn’t “in connection with” the primary election. Which is partially because the statute is absurdly broad, but that’s a whole other matter.

What is amusing is the fact that you guys relied on a completely irrelevant state statute to “smack down” PR.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:20 AM

Woah. Fastest goal-posts move eva.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:14 AM

That’s where the goalposts have been for an hour or so. Not our fault that you were too busy sniffing your own farts to notice what the actual conversation was about.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:21 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:19 AM

Reading comprehension fail. I think you’re done here, champ.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:22 AM

No. Brown v. Board smashed away the “separate but equal” foundations. It paved the way for the Civil Rights acts. Saying that Brown v Board was only about school desegregation is like saying Plessy was only about railway accommodations.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:15 AM

You’re moving the goalposts again. I said that Brown didn’t invalidate every Jim Crow law. You said it did. That’s flatly wrong. It invalidated laws mandating segregation in public education. Did it “pave the way” for the CRA and other court rulings? Sure. But that doesn’t mean that Brown itself single-handedly eradicated Jim Crow.

To refresh your memory…

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

So there you have it. You were factually, legally, and historically wrong. In the same thread. The only difference is, you won’t admit you’re mistake.

And I’m sure you still won’t.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:23 AM

A different law would cover that. 18 USC 201, to be precise. See, there are lots of different circumstances, and there are many laws which cover several different types of circumstances.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:17 AM

But not writing a ticket can’t possibly be a police activity, PR. Just like not running for office isn’t a political activity. And cats are just non-dogs!

This is your own brilliant sophistry, PR.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:23 AM

What is amusing is the fact that you guys relied on a completely irrelevant state statute to “smack down” PR.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:20 AM

Given Proud Rino’s contortions concerning the whole “activity” thing, I’d say it’s been pretty well smacked down. Unless of course Proud Rino can show some statutory basis for the definition, as I asked for a while ago.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:24 AM

So the “political activity” language isn’t necessarily what implicates Sestak et al. here, it’s the “in connection with any primary election” language. It’s tough to argue that offering the position wasn’t “in connection with” the primary election. Which is partially because the statute is absurdly broad, but that’s a whole other matter.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:20 AM

No, you need to have quid pro quo of something of value for “political activity” or for support of a candidate/political party in an election. They just asked Sestak to drop out of the race, they didn’t ask him to endorse Specter. The only place they could possibly hang their hat is one the ridiculous notion that not running for office constitutes political activity.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:25 AM

Reading comprehension fail. I think you’re done here, champ.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:22 AM

I don’t know if they taught you this in sooper-dooper law school, but putting “fail” after things and calling people “champ” isn’t an argument.

But please, PR, tell us more about your brilliant theory of the inactivity-activity axis.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:25 AM

Did it “pave the way” for the CRA and other court rulings? Sure.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:23 AM

Right.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:26 AM

The only place they could possibly hang their hat is one the ridiculous notion that not running for office constitutes political activity.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:25 AM

When not running benefits Specter, their favored candidate? Absolutely. In that case, Sestak’s withdrawal is an ACTION benefiting Specter.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:28 AM

What is amusing is the fact that you guys relied on a completely irrelevant state statute to “smack down” PR.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:20 AM

Except it had nothing to do with the statute, and everything to do with his ridiculous mental gymnastics re: what is and isn’t “political activity.”

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:29 AM

The only difference is, you won’t admit you’re mistake.

And I’m sure you still won’t.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:23 AM

Right.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:26 AM

Indeed, I was.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:29 AM

No, you need to have quid pro quo of something of value for “political activity” or for support of a candidate/political party in an election. They just asked Sestak to drop out of the race, they didn’t ask him to endorse Specter. The only place they could possibly hang their hat is one the ridiculous notion that not running for office constitutes political activity.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:25 AM

Ok, yeah that’s right. I just read it in a fragmented way.
So basically to violate the statute you need to exchange something of value for…
1) Political activity or
2) Support for or opposition to a candidate in a general election, primary, or political caucus.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:32 AM

Did Sestak (or the White House Counsel) “pull a Blumenthal” and “misspeak” when Sestak said the job offer was on the President’s INTEL Advisory Board, a job for which he was ineligible? (Byron York just broke the news, and Hot Air has it linked already…as usual, first to alert everyone).

The Board consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government. Members are distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors.

As a sitting member of Congress, Sestak was not eligible for the job. And since the White House intended for Sestak to remain in his House seat, he would not have been eligible for the board after this November’s elections, provided he was re-elected to the House.

opaobie on May 29, 2010 at 1:33 AM

So basically to violate the statute you need to exchange something of value for…
1) Political activity or
2) Support for or opposition to a candidate in a general election, primary, or political caucus.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:32 AM

Where does it say that in the statute?

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:34 AM

Except it had nothing to do with the statute, and everything to do with his ridiculous mental gymnastics re: what is and isn’t “political activity.”

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:29 AM

Well considering there’s virtually no case law on the subject, his argument is as good as yours.

It’s worth noting that I actually did find one case where someone was convicted of violating the statute, but the court discussed it in a very cursory fashion and the defendants had been convicted of like 10 other things so it almost seemed like the prosecutor just tacked it on for fun.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:34 AM

I actually haven’t been arguing that point much. And I don’t think it’s particularly relevant…mainly because the language of the statute says…

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
So the “political activity” language isn’t necessarily what implicates Sestak et al. here, it’s the “in connection with any primary election” language. It’s tough to argue that offering the position wasn’t “in connection with” the primary election. Which is partially because the statute is absurdly broad, but that’s a whole other matter.

What is amusing is the fact that you guys relied on a completely irrelevant state statute to “smack down” PR.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:20 AM

And how is the “political activity” portion not relevant?

If they offered Sestak consideration for a future position in return for his season tickets to the Pirates, this whole episode would never have happened.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:36 AM

Where does it say that in the statute?

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:34 AM

Read it carefully. The first part says you need to exchange a benefit (or special consideration in obtaining that benefit) for either 1) political activity, or 2) support for or opposition to a candidate in a primary, general election or political caucus. I was reading the latter end of the statute in a fragmented way, so i constructed it wrong, and say “in connection to a primary” as an independent basis for criminal liability. Really, it means “support for or opposition to a candidate in connection to a primary”.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:37 AM

Well considering there’s virtually no case law on the subject, his argument is as good as yours.

It’s worth noting that I actually did find one case where someone was convicted of violating the statute, but the court discussed it in a very cursory fashion and the defendants had been convicted of like 10 other things so it almost seemed like the prosecutor just tacked it on for fun.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:34 AM

Since you’re on his side, care to use his “cats are just non-dogs” logic in your next bench memo?

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:37 AM

and sayw “in connection to a primary” as an independent basis for criminal liability.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:38 AM

Since you’re on his side, care to use his “cats are just non-dogs” logic in your next bench memo?

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:37 AM

I would hate to write a bench memo on this because, like I said, there’s virtually no case law interpreting the statute.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:39 AM

Read it carefully. The first part says you need to exchange a benefit (or special consideration in obtaining that benefit) for either 1) political activity, or 2) support for or opposition to a candidate in a primary, general election or political caucus. I was reading the latter end of the statute in a fragmented way, so i constructed it wrong, and say “in connection to a primary” as an independent basis for criminal liability. Really, it means “support for or opposition to a candidate in connection to a primary”.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:37 AM

So how about giving us an actual opinion on the ethical implications of this move?

Not more tu quoques. Not “oh, it’s just horse-trading/politics as usual.” Obama was going to change the game. Most honest and open administration EVAH. Yet by your own drawn equivalencies, at best, he’s no better than the horrid, evil, rancid Bushitler Admin.

Do you approve or disapprove of this sort of political quid pro quo? How about we actually start enforcing the statute? If it’s as poorly written as you believe it to be, we can re-write it. But we shouldn’t have a statue that is never enforced simply because everyone in Washington is willing to look the other way. As voters, we shouldn’t be willing to look the other way anymore. In fact, we should be pretty damn tired of looking the other way.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:43 AM

Also, I have to say it’s sort of funny that the same people saying that not purchasing health insurance isn’t reachable under the ICC because it’s “inactivity”, are saying that not running in a primary is a criminal offense even though it is “inactivity”.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:45 AM

So how about giving us an actual opinion on the ethical implications of this move?

Not more tu quoques. Not “oh, it’s just horse-trading/politics as usual.” Obama was going to change the game. Most honest and open administration EVAH. Yet by your own drawn equivalencies, at best, he’s no better than the horrid, evil, rancid Bushitler Admin.

Yeah I don’t think it’s that big a deal. The most alarming thing is the sort of slow and unprofessional handling of it, really. Like they say, “it’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up”

Do you approve or disapprove of this sort of political quid pro quo? How about we actually start enforcing the statute?

Well there are so many appointments, and virtually every one is given for some sort of “political activity” (whether it be working on a campaign etc)…so if we did enforce it then we’d have to fine or imprison every living President.

If it’s as poorly written as you believe it to be, we can re-write it. But we shouldn’t have a statue that is never enforced simply because everyone in Washington is willing to look the other way. As voters, we shouldn’t be willing to look the other way anymore. In fact, we should be pretty damn tired of looking the other way.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:43 AM

Again, I really have no problem with people being offered positions based in part on their political support and/or ideological agreement, as long as they’re qualified. And you can save that and spit it back to me in 3 years.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:51 AM

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,

Offering a job to Sestak in exchange for his withdrawal from the race to benefit Specter is support of Specter. It seems pretty clear.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:51 AM

And you can save that and spit it back to me in 3 years.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:51 AM

Or 7 years…

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:51 AM

Offering a job to Sestak in exchange for his withdrawal from the race to benefit Specter is support of Specter. It seems pretty clear.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:51 AM

Meh. Maybe. The effect of his withdrawal benefits Specter, yeah. It also could benefit Toomey or anyone else running, depending on how you look at it. I think that reading is as plausible or implausible as PR’s.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:55 AM

Also, I have to say it’s sort of funny that the same people saying that not purchasing health insurance isn’t reachable under the ICC because it’s “inactivity”, are saying that not running in a primary is a criminal offense even though it is “inactivity”.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:45 AM

Doesn’t that go both ways? I’m guessing PR is perfectly fine with the expansion of the ICC, so that a farm that only sells in-state is still engaging in ICC by *not* engaging in ICC, but suddenly dropping out of a race isn’t “activity.”

Also, your analogy doesn’t really cut it. It would be like having health insurance, dropping it simply out of principle because Obamacare passed, and then complaining when you’re forced to get health insurance again. No one is saying that John Smith of Anytown, PA is involved in the Senate primary by not being involved in the Senate primary. Sestak was explicitly going to run, and you know that, and the WH knows that, and Clinton knows that, and the MSM knows that. If PR’s logic were correct, wouldn’t the WH be pushing that angle? But they aren’t even touching it. They’re 100% relying on A. Clinton being a suitable buffer and B. Characterizing the offer as being more of a “Hey, we miiiiight have a position for you if you aren’t already busy with something else, like that pesky Senate run” deal than a bare bones quid pro quo “drop out and we’re giving you X position.” And it’ll probably work, and this will get buried by the end of the month. Only way this allegation sticks is if the Colorado story is just as damaging and we start to get a clear pattern. The MSM loves an easy narrative, after all.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:55 AM

are saying that not running in a primary is a criminal offense even though it is “inactivity”.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:45 AM

The problem is no one’s saying that. There are quite a few people in Pennsylvania who aren’t running, and it’s certainly not a crime not to run. Dropping out in exchange for a job to benefit an opponent is another matter entirely.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:55 AM

Or 7 years…

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:51 AM

No no, you were right the first time. :)

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:57 AM

Again, I really have no problem with people being offered positions based in part on their political support and/or ideological agreement, as long as they’re qualified.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:51 AM

That’s not the issue. The issue is manipulating the electoral process.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:57 AM

Doesn’t that go both ways? I’m guessing PR is perfectly fine with the expansion of the ICC, so that a farm that only sells in-state is still engaging in ICC by *not* engaging in ICC, but suddenly dropping out of a race isn’t “activity.”

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 1:55 AM

I don’t know his position on HCR. And I don’t really think the two situations are that comparable. I was being facetious.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:59 AM

That’s not the issue. The issue is manipulating the electoral process.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:57 AM

That’s not what the statute says.

And if you don’t think that every single election is “manipulated” based upon politics, you’re unbelievably naive.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 2:00 AM

That’s not the issue. The issue is manipulating the electoral process.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:57 AM

That’s not what the statute says.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 2:00 AM

I take it that’s the whole purpose for the statute. And “everybody does it” didn’t work for Nixon, and it won’t work here.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 2:02 AM

Well there are so many appointments, and virtually every one is given for some sort of “political activity” (whether it be working on a campaign etc)…so if we did enforce it then we’d have to fine or imprison every living President.

So then how about we change the wording from the incredibly broad “political activity” to something a little more focused?

There’s a big difference between nominating someone because you were in the same Senate Committee (which could possibly break the current statue if you really want to stretch it), and nominating someone because you bribed/”persuaded” them to drop out of an election. You’re saying all political nominations are okay because, hey, it’s Washington, everyone is somehow connected politically, so every nomination will be at least slightly tainted.

I’m saying, even if we accept that as true, there’s a line, as there should be a line, and if we need to re-write the statute so that the delineation is more clear, so be it. But I’m sick and tired of this form of “move along, nothing to see here” behavior from both parties. And guess what? So is most of the country.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 2:04 AM

I take it that’s the whole purpose for the statute. And “everybody does it” didn’t work for Nixon, and it won’t work here.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 2:02 AM

Ok, but like I said…if you support prosecuting this then let’s subpoena every living President, and every national election where there appears to be some quid pro quo going on and political “manipulation”. Every single appointment (including SCOTUS appointments) that seem to be based on some sort of political activity need to be investigated as well. If you support enforcing the statute, then you need to support enforcing it equally?

Are you with me?

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 2:05 AM

I don’t know his position on HCR. And I don’t really think the two situations are that comparable. I was being facetious.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:59 AM

Oh, come on. He’s a lib, what do you think his position on HCR is going to be? A principled opposition due to his patriotic love of federalism? Gag-worthy.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 2:05 AM

In any event, I need to go to bed. I’ll check back tomorrow though.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 2:07 AM

Ok, but like I said…if you support prosecuting this then let’s subpoena every living President, and every national election where there appears to be some quid pro quo going on and political “manipulation”. Every single appointment (including SCOTUS appointments) that seem to be based on some sort of political activity need to be investigated as well. If you support enforcing the statute, then you need to support enforcing it equally?

Are you with me?

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 2:05 AM

Well, there’s two living Dems and two living Pubs, so the political scorecard is even. The frothing left finally gets their wet dream of Dubya behind bars, the right gets to see Clinton in the slammer, and the entire country gets a reprieve from President Present two and a half years ahead of schedule.

Sounds awesome to me. You in, crr? Come on, Dubya in prison! You know you want that sweet, sweet candy….

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 2:08 AM

And if you don’t think that every single election is “manipulated” based upon politics, you’re unbelievably naive.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 2:00 AM

Candidate X runs a misleading smear commercial against Candidate Y.

Candidate X rigs a voting machine to give him 200 extra votes in a key precinct.

Both of these are political “manipulation” on an election. Most of us grudgingly accept situation 1, and would never accept situation 2 and would expect Candidate X to see some hard jail time.

You keep equating nominating someone because they worked on your campaign with nominating someone because you pushed them out of a messy Senate primary and they acquiesced simply because they both fit the banner of “political activity.” If your point is that we need to fix the statute, I agree. If your point is that we need to just accept it because it’s “how politics works,” no dice.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 2:16 AM

Ok, but like I said…if you support prosecuting this then let’s subpoena every living President, and every national election where there appears to be some quid pro quo going on and political “manipulation”.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 2:05 AM

OK, let’s try a little thought experiment. Let’s imagine that it comes to light that Sarah Palin and staff are paying off Nikki Haley’s opponents in SC to drop out of the race. Now imagine the reactions of crr6 and Proud Rino as this relates to the statute.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 2:19 AM

Well, there’s two living Dems and two living Pubs, so the political scorecard is even. The frothing left finally gets their wet dream of Dubya behind bars, the right gets to see Clinton in the slammer, and the entire country gets a reprieve from President Present two and a half years ahead of schedule.

Sounds awesome to me. You in, crr? Come on, Dubya in prison! You know you want that sweet, sweet candy….

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 2:08 AM

Darn, in my sleepy state I forgot that Jimmuh is still alive and kickin, at least technically speaking. I guess that makes it a bit too awesome for Repubs, but I think W in prison is just so much red meat for the nutbars on the left that they’d sacrifice Peanuts, Big Dog and even Ojesus himself to make it happen.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 29, 2010 at 2:24 AM

All I can say is this nation is using Bill Clinton’s urine to piss on itself. If this country votes to keep these hacks in the majority, it deserves its place in hell.

leftnomore on May 29, 2010 at 6:09 AM

However, if the Republican Party wishes to pursue this absolutely asinine non-issue, I’m going to vote straight ticket Democrat in retaliation.

thuja on May 28, 2010 at 11:53 PM

Good idea, because the Democratic party never pursues anything asinine, like mischaracterization of Rush Limbaugh’s joke about the guy impersonating a soldier, or phony documents about Bush’s National Guard service, or declaring the surge a failure, or the smearing of Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork and any number of SC nominees. No sirree.

Sestak’s lying through his teeth, the WH is trying to give him cover, and like most other things, they can’t even do that competently. It’s not impeachable, just typical, and it deserves to be questioned and mocked.

Nichevo on May 29, 2010 at 7:25 AM

Nichevo on May 29, 2010 at 7:25 AM

I agree, not impeachable…yet. But am I the only one who thinks that, when the right card is pulled, the entire house will come tumblin’ down?

All politicians are slimy liars. But the Obama admin is also narcissistic, which makes them slimy careless liars.

Grace_is_sufficient on May 29, 2010 at 7:56 AM

Peggy Noonan’s column in the Wall Street Journal, “He Was Supposed to be Competent,” has gotten quite a bit of attention. Noonan renders a harsh verdict on President Obama:

I don’t see how the president’s position and popularity can survive the oil spill. This is his third political disaster in his first 18 months in office. And they were all, as they say, unforced errors, meaning they were shaped by the president’s political judgment and instincts. …

[Hurricane] Katrina did at least two big things politically. The first was draw together everything people didn’t like about the Bush administration…. The second was illustrate that even though the federal government in our time has continually taken on new missions and responsibilities, the more it took on, the less it seemed capable of performing even its most essential jobs. Conservatives got this point–they know it without being told–but liberals and progressives did not. They thought Katrina was the result only of George W. Bush’s incompetence and conservatives’ failure to “believe in government.” But Mr. Obama was supposed to be competent.

What is curious is that quite a few people did think that Obama would be an especially competent president. Why? What evidence was there that Obama would be a skillful administrator? Before becoming president, he had never in his life run anything more substantial than a Senate staff. His executive experience was closer to zero than that of any president in memory.

Being a good executive requires great skill. Moreover, it is not the sort of skill that anyone is born with. It takes experience to learn how to run things, to administer things, to manage things. And people. Obama has no such experience, and is therefore learning on the job. Before becoming president, he was best known for giving speeches that were often disconnected from reality. Why would anyone interpret this skill as the sign of a competent administrator?

I don’t know. All I can say is, no one should be surprised at the mess that is the Obama administration.

PAUL adds: I doubt that liberals thought, in Noonan’s words, that “Katrina was the result only of George W. Bush’s incompetence and conservatives’ failure to believe in government.” I think they saw an opportunity to beat Bush up and took it. Now Republicans are using the same stick to beat Obama up.

This is part of a depressingly familiar phenomenon — the politicization by Democrats of everything, with the Republicans (reasonably enough) following suit. We saw it with judicial nominees, to cite one example, and now we’re seeing it with natural disasters.

This from powerline sums it up for me quite well… This thread is a perfect example also. We the people should require much more of our elected officials and we all should agree to a strict form of etiquette from those who run our country. Our government has become a huge embarrassment, and behaves much more like spoiled brat children than grown-up adults. We ultimately pay the price. Our media has become downright dangerous, much worse than an embarrassment.

Keemo on May 29, 2010 at 8:14 AM

Sestak could very well be a lying blowhard, after all he is is lib dem, but what he is now is in too deep with the Clinton machine and the Obama regime. BillC loves the political intrigue and making himself look larger than life, while, gee, O loves the same things. Sestak may not know it yet, but he’s in a lousy position. Wonder if he’s gonna fit under the bus.

Kissmygrits on May 29, 2010 at 9:42 AM

Crr6, your defense of this bunch is pathetic.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2010 at 9:45 AM

Nichevo on May 29, 2010 at 7:25 AM

Well said.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2010 at 9:51 AM

Blood in the water…when you lay down with dogs, you will get up with fleas.

I don’t think Sestak is going to be the next Senator from Pennsylvania. He looks like he is covering for Chicago Gang.

Dr Evil on May 29, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Now it’s all about the cover-up…
Scum is scum; they can’t help themselves. This is what they do & all they know… Justice is a-coming.

Keemo on May 29, 2010 at 10:02 AM

OK, let’s try a little thought experiment. Let’s imagine that it comes to light that Sarah Palin and staff are paying off Nikki Haley’s opponents in SC to drop out of the race. Now imagine the reactions of crr6 and Proud Rino as this relates to the statute.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 2:19 AM

I don’t think it violates 18 USC 600. Maybe it violates some other laws (campaign finance laws? I don’t know much about election law), but it doesn’t violate that one, because political activity has to actually be an action of some sort.

Sestak hadn’t formally announced his candidacy at that point – and he hadn’t, then you’re essentially saying that a guy who has not formally announced his primary run must continue to run whether he wants to or not, or anything anyone offers him of value could potentially be charged with violating a law which has apparently never been used successfully to charge anyone with anything before.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 10:16 AM

The effect of his withdrawal benefits Specter, yeah. It also could benefit Toomey or anyone else running, depending on how you look at it. I think that reading is as plausible or implausible as PR’s.

crr6 on May 29, 2010 at 1:55 AM

Benefits ≠ Supports

Statute says, “supports or opposes.” It doesn’t say anything about “benefits.”

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 10:22 AM

I voted for Bob McDonnell for Governor (FWIW I’m very close to wishing I could take back that vote), and so, I supported McDonnell in the last election. However, I also didn’t personally run for governor against Creigh Deeds, so I guess I supported him too, because actively trying to destroy his campaign actually benefited Deeds, so I guess I might be liable for violating 18 USC 600 since I only voted for McDonnell because I thought he would be a better governor, so I was getting “something of value” in exchange for my vote.

I’ll go turn myself in.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 10:25 AM

To summarize: A guy who has not formally announced his run for office is offered some job if he doesn’t run. So then, if Sestak does not formally announce his run for office whether he wants to run or not, then the person who has offered him this job has now violated federal law.

I’m sorry, I have to keep typing it because it’s seriously one of the craziest things I’ve ever read.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 10:28 AM

Did you know George W. Bush had offered Colin Powell the job of Secretary of State even though Powell had not yet announced that he was going to run for President in 2004? Should we impeach Bush retroactively? What do you guys think?

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 10:29 AM

So then, if Sestak does not formally announce his run for office whether he wants to run or not, then the person who has offered him this job has now violated federal law.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 10:28 AM

Oh wait, I got this part confused – you guys are saying that it’s irrelevant that Sestak actually runs or not. So therefore it is illegal to offer anyone a job who may potentially run for some office someday. Great.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 10:33 AM

given the FRANTIC nature of your posts, this is big, and people like you are trying their best to hide it.

your attempt at obfuscation is lame and laughable, but very predictable…

right4life on May 29, 2010 at 10:37 AM

given the FRANTIC nature of your posts, this is big, and people like you are trying their best to hide it.

your attempt at obfuscation is lame and laughable, but very predictable…

right4life on May 29, 2010 at 10:37 AM

I’m not trying to hide anything. I think crr6 and people that say stuff like, “Oh all politicians do it” are trying to hide it, or at least excuse it. I’m saying, based on my reading of the statute, there has to be political activity involved or he has to support or oppose a candidate.

Not running for office is not a political activity, and not running against a candidate is not support for that candidate.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Bunch of crooks.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 29, 2010 at 11:07 AM

I don’t think it violates 18 USC 600. Maybe it violates some other laws (campaign finance laws? I don’t know much about election law), but it doesn’t violate that one, because political activity has to actually be an action of some sort.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 10:16 AM

LOL…yeah, right. A Rand Paul hypothetical would be even better. If it were to be revealed that Palin had tried to pay off Grayson to leave the primary race, you and your soulmates in the Dem party would be SCREAMING for charges to be filed against Palin. I can just imagine the frenzy.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 11:36 AM

LOL…yeah, right. A Rand Paul hypothetical would be even better. If it were to be revealed that Palin had tried to pay off Grayson to leave the primary race, you and your soulmates in the Dem party would be SCREAMING for charges to be filed against Palin. I can just imagine the frenzy.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 11:36 AM

The names/political parties involved don’t change the legal analysis. I mean, I guess they do for *you*, but for people that actually take the law seriously, it doesn’t.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Wonder what job the Obama administration is offering Sestak to not mention the original job he was offered?

Rbastid on May 29, 2010 at 11:49 AM

The names/political parties involved don’t change the legal analysis. I mean, I guess they do for *you*, but for people that actually take the law seriously, it doesn’t.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Of course not. Libs always turn on the sophistry when it’s one of their own behind the 8-ball.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Hey, did I hear someone start a bus?

Wyznowski on May 29, 2010 at 11:52 AM

I just do not believe this explanation at all! Months of looking into things to get to this explanation just is unbelievable. The only way to the truth is to put Sestak under oath. As left wing and now political as Sestak has become – he was a Naval Officer and will tell the truth under oath. Follow him and ask him questions at every stop on the campaign trail – eventually he will tell the truth. Bringing in Bubba for this and Bubba actually doing this is not believable – what upside was there for him? Hillary VP 2012?

StuckinliberalNY on May 29, 2010 at 12:01 PM

This is beginning to sound like an argument in an English faculty meting. Yawn.

Mason on May 29, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Not running for office is not a political activity, and not running against a candidate is not support for that candidate.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 10:46 AM

The onus is on the WH , concerning the statuate – not the person who is running. Nowhere has anyone said Sestak committed a crime.

That also throws out your inane “well Joe Schmoe isn’t running, is that political activity???”

Thw WH – in both memos – written by a lawyer explicitly state “we knew it would be a tough and costly primary, one we wanted to avoid”

There is the intent and the crime the WH committed – again the onus is on them to NOT violate Sec 600. They specifically knew it was a tough primary (political activity) and wanted to avoid it buy offering Sestak the so-called “no big deal, uncompensated job” (the illegal offer)

Its so straight forward, its laughable as cover is being thrown in all directions, using useless analogy’s that have nothing to do with the law.

The fact you dont even know the onus ISNT on Sestak makes it laughable.

Read the WH memos – verbatim. They are dumb enough to spell out the crime, while scrambling for cover.

Odie1941 on May 29, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Proud RINO, I would be very surprised if you ever have actually voted for any Republican, Conservative or anything close. In all the threads I’ve ever read your comments, you have never once that I can recall, defended a Republican or Conservative or missed a chance to defend or make a positive comment about this administration. If I’m wrong, please link to something I might have missed.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Lawl.

Exactly how many cases have you argued using your brilliant “ignorance of the law” defense”???

Your honor, my client was not aware of that particular statute… so we didn’t obey it…

Well your honor, so & so got away with breaking this statute… it must not be settled law.

Where exactly did you pass the bar? The moon?

tetriskid on May 29, 2010 at 12:59 PM

If it’s “no biggie,” then great. If it’s no biggie now, it was no biggie at the time and you just answer the questions.

So why the “no comment” that follows? And if it WASN’T Sec of Navy, why “no comment”? Why not a simple, “no”? THEN what was it, “no comment.”

UnderstandingisPower on May 29, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Proud RINO, I would be very surprised if you ever have actually voted for any Republican, Conservative or anything close. In all the threads I’ve ever read your comments, you have never once that I can recall, defended a Republican or Conservative or missed a chance to defend or make a positive comment about this administration. If I’m wrong, please link to something I might have missed.

hawkdriver on May 29, 2010 at 12:52 PM

I’m sick of getting this, so here’s full disclosure of my voting record.

The last election I voted in, I voted mostly for Republicans – Virginia, I voted for McDonnell (I did not vote for Cucinelli). I voted for Bush twice. I voted for John Warner. I voted for George Allen for the Senate in 2000. I’ve voted for Republicans in my congressional seat until 2006, and that had more to do with me moving than the candidates.

I voted for Webb for Senate, Mark Warner for Gov, Tim Kaine for Gov, Mark Warner for Senate, and Obama for President.

So, of the major seats I’ve voted for, I’ve voted for Republicans 9 times and Democrats 5 times.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:24 PM

“Your honor, my client was not aware of that particular statute… so we didn’t obey it…”

“Well your honor, so & so got away with breaking this statute… it must not be settled law.”

tetriskid on May 29, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Interesting, where did I say ignorance of the law was acceptable? Where did I say, “Well they probably didn’t know about this statute, so it’s OK to violate it?”

Seriously, dude, I can never keep straight which of you idiots are which, but weren’t you the guy that thought Kagan was a judge already? Are you ever right about anything?

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Seriously, dude, I can never keep straight which of you idiots are which,

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Cool. We can always tell which idiot you are. We just look for the dimestore lawyer argument.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Odie1941 on May 29, 2010 at 12:17 PM

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here since you’re not a very good writer, but “intent” is irrelevant. It has to be an exchange of something of value in connection with political activity. That’s not my interpretation, that’s what the law says.

Since Sestak had not filed with Pennsylvania to get his name on the ballot nor even formally announce his candidacy at the time of the offer, you’re essentially saying that the White House asking him not to run for office is political activity. You’re saying that *not running for political office is political activity.*

Nuts. That’s totally nuts.

Look, let’s get something straight – I think what the White House did was kind of sleazy. I think the fact that most administrations do this kind of thing does not excuse the fact that it is sleazy. I wish Obama hadn’t done it. It was a morally bad act, and to the extent that Obama gets hurt by this politically, he deserves it.

But just because something is *bad* doesn’t mean it’s *illegal*. That is all dependent on what the laws actually say, and unless you can come up with an argument that not running for political office is political activity, your case is a loser.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Since Sestak had not filed with Pennsylvania to get his name on the ballot nor even formally announce his candidacy at the time of the offer, you’re essentially saying that the White House asking him not to run for office is political activity. You’re saying that *not running for political office is political activity.*

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:32 PM

So why did they approach Sestak at all? Because they thought he was the very best man for the job (whatever that was)? Because they like the way he parts his hair?

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:36 PM

So why did they approach Sestak at all? Because they thought he was the very best man for the job (whatever that was)? Because they like the way he parts his hair?

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:36 PM

No, obviously they didn’t want him to run in the primary. It’s a sleazy move. It might even violate the spirit of the law, or what the intent of the law was. But in this country, thank God, the laws only mean what they say, not what they’re “supposed” to say, and certainly not what you’d *like* them to say.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:38 PM

No, obviously they didn’t want him to run in the primary. It’s a sleazy move. It might even violate the spirit of the law, or what the intent of the law was. But in this country, thank God, the laws only mean what they say, not what they’re “supposed” to say, and certainly not what you’d *like* them to say.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:38 PM

They do, and the law is clear enough to make both Sestak and the administration to be awfully “no-commentish”. If it was as cut-and-dried in its legality as you suggest, there wouldn’t be all the furtiveness. It’s not only p.r. This White House knows it doesn’t have to worry about that. They are genuinely hiding something.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:42 PM

If it was as cut-and-dried in its legality as you suggest, there wouldn’t be all the furtiveness.

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Just because it’s technically legal doesn’t mean it’s not sleazy, and if it starts to look bad enough, they might have to force people to resign, which presumably Obama doesn’t want to do. Let’s not forget that this same guy talked about being the most ethical, open administration ever. Just because it doesn’t happen to be illegal doesn’t mean it’s not bad publicity that they’d rather not have in the news.

A good comparison, I think – Alberto Gonzalez firing US attorneys for politically motivated reasons is one of the sleaziest things I’ve ever seen in politics, and I see a lot of sleazy politics on a day to day basis. But that wasn’t illegal either. I’m glad he resigned, he was an embarrassment to the Bush Administration, but what he did was not criminal.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Just because it’s technically legal doesn’t mean it’s not sleazy, and if it starts to look bad enough, they might have to force people to resign, which presumably Obama doesn’t want to do.

Proud Rino on May 29, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Oh, come on. People in this administration resigning over mere sleaziness? LOL

ddrintn on May 29, 2010 at 1:58 PM

So this all boils down to what your definition of the word “activity” is? LOL! History doesn’t repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme sometimes.

Is a bj NOT “sexual relations?” Is NOT running for office “political activity?”

If Bill Clinton could just keep his nose out of other people’s orifices offices, Washington D.C. would be a much less confusing place.

29Victor on May 29, 2010 at 2:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5