Sestak Bribery Questions Remain Unanswered

[jack sommerset]

Appearing on a televised news program in mid-February, US Representative Joe Sestak (D-Pennsylvania) was asked if the Obama administration offered him a high-ranking federal job in exchange for dropping his primary challenge to Senator Arlen Specter. Representative Sestak said yes. Three months and a primary win later; he is still saying it happened but is refusing to provide details of the crime and, if it happened, it most certainly was a crime.

Often laws, especially federal laws, are long and difficult for an ordinary citizen to understand. But the one allegedly broken by someone in the Obama administration with regard to Mr. Sestak (Title 18 US Code Section 600) is simple and straight forward:

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. (source)

The employment allegedly promised in the Sestak case is the job of Secretary of the Navy which would have required Senate confirmation (an act of Congress). And, as a "primary election" is specifically listed in the statute, there is no doubt that whoever directly or indirectly made that offer to Mr. Sestak violated the law.

Of course it is possible that Mr. Sestak is lying and no offer was ever made. But if that were the case, one would expect the Obama administration to be justifiably shouting their innocence; even demanding that Mr. Sestak resign from his Senate campaign in favor of some other Democrat (perhaps their primary candidate of choice - Senator Specter). But the administration is not proclaiming innocence. What they are claiming is that there is "no evidence" that anyone in the administration violated the law and that nothing said was "inappropriate".

Appearing on CNN this week, Senior White House Advisor David Axelrod stated, "When the allegations were made, they were looked into. And there was no evidence of such a thing." In the same interview, he did acknowledge that if a job was offered to stop the primary challenge to Senator Specter it would "constitute a serious breach of the law" and that there were "conversations" involving White House officials (he would not say who) and Mr. Sestak. But he said those conversations had been "looked at" by White House lawyers and "their conclusion was that it was perfect - the conversations were perfectly appropriate." (source) Appropriate for what? The political goals of the administration?

Appearing on CBS on Sunday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to confirm whether or not an offer was made saying only that "nothing inappropriate" happened. (source) Again, commenting on whether or not what happened was appropriate not whether or not it was legal. A coincidental word choice or the official administration spin on the issue?

In the latest sign that the mainstream media may be abandoning its knee jerk defense of all things Obama, the editors of the Washington Post wrote the following in a recent editorial on the issue:

The White House position that everyone should just trust it and go away is unacceptable from any administration; it is especially hypocritical coming from this one. "I'm not going to get further into what the conversations were," Mr. Gibbs said Sunday. "People that have looked into them assure me that they weren't inappropriate in any way." This response would hardly have satisfied those who were upset during the previous administration about the firing of US attorneys. If there was nothing improper, why not all that sunlight Mr. Obama promised? (source)

Why not, indeed. Both the Obama administration and Representative Sestak need to be more forthcoming about this incident so that the American people can decide whether or not it was appropriate and the American justice system can determine whether or not it was legal.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think the administration needs to give up whomever this was. It is my understanding that depending on what was discussed it may not be an issue. If the question was something to the affect of, would you be interested in a job with the administration? Or was it, if you drop out of the race we will give you a job. Apprently there is a legal fine line that cannot be crossed.Maybe one of our resident legal experts could clarify this mess. Whatever happened needs to be vetted and cleared before this gets out of hand..

oh and jack I still think you're dumb

[jack sommerset]

I think the administration needs to give up whomever this was. It is my understanding that depending on what was discussed it may not be an issue. If the question was something to the affect of, would you be interested in a job with the administration? Or was it, if you drop out of the race we will give you a job. Apprently there is a legal fine line that cannot be crossed.Maybe one of our resident legal experts could clarify this mess. Whatever happened needs to be vetted and cleared before this gets out of hand..

What if Obama gave the go ahead?

[George Gervin's Afro]

What if Obama gave the go ahead?

That would be for Congress or Special prosecutor to decide. Plausibe deniability jack..

[jack sommerset]

That would be for Congress or Special prosecutor to decide. Plausibe deniability jack..

Plausible deniability. Sweet defense!


So "if' Obama gave the go ahead to break the law, would you support impeaching him?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Plausible deniability. Sweet defense!


So "if' Obama gave the go ahead to break the law, would you support impeaching him?

If Obama said ' hey, let's offer sestak a job to pursuade him not to run' then I think he deserves to impeached. if you break the law you deserve the consequences.

[jack sommerset]

LOL@ Bill Clinton feeling Sestak out for a future job.

[ElNono]

If you're so interested, why don't you sue and find out what really happened, jack?

[Duff McCartney]

I think Obama should pull a W and claim executive privilege.

In other news, gambling goes on in casinos. Just thought you might want to know if you haven't already.

[jack sommerset]

We know what happened. Barry tried to bribe Sestak to leave the Senate election.

[boutons_deux]

quid pro quo, arm twisting, getting "hammered", horse trading, in totally corrupt, rotten DC? I'm shocked.

Repugs had no problem with Delay and friends blatantaly shaking corps for jobs for Repug operatives and families and consultants, etc, etc.

Like the Repug deficit hawks hawking only Dem deficits, this "scandal" is completely red herring and hypocrtical.

[jack sommerset]

quid pro quo, arm twisting, getting "hammered", horse trading, in totally corrupt, rotten DC? I'm shocked.

Repugs had no problem with Delay and friends blatantaly shaking corps for jobs for Repug operatives and families and consultants, etc, etc.

Like the Repug deficit hawks hawking only Dem deficits, this "scandal" is completely red herring and hypocrtical.

Deflection notice

[jack sommerset]

tSORKTIyP1o

[boutons_deux]

" two prominent public integrity lawyers with white-collar crime and Justice Department experience say that if the White House and Sestak's account of what happened is to be believed, then no sober-minded prosecutor would pursue the case.

"I looked through it," Steve Bunnell of the firm O'Melveny & Myers, said of the job-offering related document released by the White House on Friday. "I don't see anything criminal about what happened. Basically you are talking about political horse-trading, which strikes me as an inherent part of democracy. There is nothing inherently bad about it unless you think politics and democracy are bad."

Formerly the Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Bunnell has no shortage of exposure with public corruption cases. The Sestak scandal not only passes the smell test, it doesn't really smell, he said. Bunnell isn't alone in his reading of the issue's legal underpinnings.

"I have seen the White House description of what occurred," said James Cooper, formerly Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division at the Justice Department and now with the firm Arnold & Porter. "Certainly, as described, it does not sound to me as the sort of thing that any reasonable prosecutor would view as criminal. It seems to me that this is the political process at work... I don't understand as a legal matter how a prosecutor could sustain a case charging either party in this matter. I don't know of any precedent off the top of my head for anybody being prosecuted in this context.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/28/sestak-obama-job-offer-le_n_593826.html?view=print

iow, BIG FUCKING YAWN. It's Repugs acting in smash-mouth BAD FAITH

[EmptyMan]

Really anxious to see which gimmick Obama chooses to run on this next go around.

Hell, it'll probably work again. :lol

[EmptyMan]

Dems can do no wrong.


St. Ronnie is the Antichrist.

[Stringer_Bell]

that's a real sloppy deal they tried to pull, BUT i'm not really concerned about it. it'll be funny to see why this is going to piss Fox and the GOP off. it has nothing to do with them, they won't win the seat...unless Sestak is seen as a major pussy, which is possible.

[jack sommerset]

LOL@ Sestak winning the seat.

[jack sommerset]

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 600, which says, “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, in 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 … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

The White House admitted as much.

[ChumpDumper]

LOL@ Sestak winning the seat.He's up by three points in the latest poll.

[jack sommerset]

He's up by three points in the latest poll.

Lets check the polls next week.

[ChumpDumper]

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 600, which says, “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, in 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 … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

The White House admitted as much.Link to the admission.

And if you could post your legal experience so we can compare it to that of Bush appointees Bunnell and Cooper, that'd be swell.

[jack sommerset]

Link to the admission.

And if you could post your legal experience so we can compare it to that of Bush appointees Bunnell and Cooper, that'd be swell.

Read the White House response today. They acknowledged that it enlisted Bill Clinton to try to ease Sestak out of Pennsylvania's Senate primary with a job offer.

Never heard of Bunnell and Cooper. I might look it up this weekend, just for you. But I might not.

[ChumpDumper]

Read the White House response today. They acknowledged that it enlisted Bill Clinton to try to ease Sestak out of Pennsylvania's Senate primary with a job offer.That isn't a link.


Never heard of Bunnell and Cooper. I might look it up this weekend, just for you. But I might not.Good to see you didn't read anything above. Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

[jack sommerset]

that isn't a link.

Good to see you didn't read anything above. Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

lol

[jack sommerset]

bump-

[ChumpDumper]

Why?

[jack sommerset]

Appearing on a televised news program in mid-February, US Representative Joe Sestak (D-Pennsylvania) was asked if the Obama administration offered him a high-ranking federal job in exchange for dropping his primary challenge to Senator Arlen Specter. Representative Sestak said yes. Three months and a primary win later; he is still saying it happened but is refusing to provide details of the crime and, if it happened, it most certainly was a crime.

Often laws, especially federal laws, are long and difficult for an ordinary citizen to understand. But the one allegedly broken by someone in the Obama administration with regard to Mr. Sestak (Title 18 US Code Section 600) is simple and straight forward:

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. (source)

The employment allegedly promised in the Sestak case is the job of Secretary of the Navy which would have required Senate confirmation (an act of Congress). And, as a "primary election" is specifically listed in the statute, there is no doubt that whoever directly or indirectly made that offer to Mr. Sestak violated the law.

Of course it is possible that Mr. Sestak is lying and no offer was ever made. But if that were the case, one would expect the Obama administration to be justifiably shouting their innocence; even demanding that Mr. Sestak resign from his Senate campaign in favor of some other Democrat (perhaps their primary candidate of choice - Senator Specter). But the administration is not proclaiming innocence. What they are claiming is that there is "no evidence" that anyone in the administration violated the law and that nothing said was "inappropriate".

Appearing on CNN this week, Senior White House Advisor David Axelrod stated, "When the allegations were made, they were looked into. And there was no evidence of such a thing." In the same interview, he did acknowledge that if a job was offered to stop the primary challenge to Senator Specter it would "constitute a serious breach of the law" and that there were "conversations" involving White House officials (he would not say who) and Mr. Sestak. But he said those conversations had been "looked at" by White House lawyers and "their conclusion was that it was perfect - the conversations were perfectly appropriate." (source) Appropriate for what? The political goals of the administration?

Appearing on CBS on Sunday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to confirm whether or not an offer was made saying only that "nothing inappropriate" happened. (source) Again, commenting on whether or not what happened was appropriate not whether or not it was legal. A coincidental word choice or the official administration spin on the issue?

In the latest sign that the mainstream media may be abandoning its knee jerk defense of all things Obama, the editors of the Washington Post wrote the following in a recent editorial on the issue:

The White House position that everyone should just trust it and go away is unacceptable from any administration; it is especially hypocritical coming from this one. "I'm not going to get further into what the conversations were," Mr. Gibbs said Sunday. "People that have looked into them assure me that they weren't inappropriate in any way." This response would hardly have satisfied those who were upset during the previous administration about the firing of US attorneys. If there was nothing improper, why not all that sunlight Mr. Obama promised? (source)

Why not, indeed. Both the Obama administration and Representative Sestak need to be more forthcoming about this incident so that the American people can decide whether or not it was appropriate and the American justice system can determine whether or not it was legal.

[ChumpDumper]

Who is Carole, jack?

[spursncowboys]

Another example of not only the hypocrisy of obama and friends but of the established mainstream media.

[ChumpDumper]

Did Republicans complain about Reagan when he did the same thing?

Another example of their hypocrisy.

[sook]

jack, you're an anti semite.

Rahm Emanuel did nothing wrong. And you're only saying all this because he's jewish.

[jack sommerset]

I love Jews, Natalie Portman, Queen Amidala in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, she is one of my favorites actresses.

[sook]

I love Jews, Natalie Portman, Queen Amidala in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, she is one of my favorites actresses.

lies. Rah Emanuel is jewish, and you are hating.

Which makes you a jew hater.

[jack sommerset]

lies. Rah Emanuel is jewish, and you are hating.

Which makes you a jew hater.

Did you work for the Obama campaign? Your logic sounds very similar.

[Stringer_Bell]

I love Jews, Natalie Portman, Queen Amidala in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, she is one of my favorites actresses.

I like how you picked her most annoying film role to identify her. Choice pick, mate!

[jack sommerset]

I like how you picked her most annoying film role to identify her. Choice pick, mate!

It shows my true love can do no wrong. Goddamn, I love the jews!!!!!

[sook]

It shows my true love can do no wrong. Goddamn, I love the jews!!!!!

the star wars analogy made me lol, but fear not, I will come back and have my vengeance!