PDA

View Full Version : Sestak



road kill
05-25-2010, 03:53 PM
Any thoughts on this mess?
Is this legit?
Is this guy full of it?

I honestly do not know what to make of it yet.
Dick Morris claims he has the inside, but who knows, the media has not picked it up yet.


stan b

Buzz
05-25-2010, 04:03 PM
It would help if you would be a little more specific. If the media hasn't picked up on in yet, won't find it on google...

Are you talking about the "job offer?"

road kill
05-25-2010, 04:07 PM
It would help if you would be a little more specific. If the media hasn't picked up on in yet, won't find it on google...
He is the Congressman (former Admiral) that claims he was offered a Cabinet position to not run against Specter.

I catch liitle bits of it.

I saw him interviewed, he said that he was offered a position to not run.
So....either he is lying or someone could be in pretty big trouble.


stan b

Franco
05-25-2010, 04:08 PM
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/20100524_Sestak__White_House_deflect_job-offer_questions.html

Chicago style politics.

huntinman
05-25-2010, 04:38 PM
Problem is now that Sestak won the primary, he has no incentive for the story to continue. Now he is backpedaling to stay in good graces with BHO and his merry gang. If there were no witnesses, this will unfortunately go nowhere. The Chicago thugs will just deny it.

depittydawg
05-25-2010, 04:40 PM
He is the Congressman (former Admiral) that claims he was offered a Cabinet position to not run against Specter.

I catch liitle bits of it.

I saw him interviewed, he said that he was offered a position to not run.
So....either he is lying or someone could be in pretty big trouble.


stan b

Why would anyone be in trouble for offering the guy a position? Seems like politics as usual to me. Not desireable. But nothing out of the ordinary.

huntinman
05-25-2010, 04:42 PM
Why would anyone be in trouble for offering the guy a position? Seems like politics as usual to me. Not desireable. But nothing out of the ordinary.

Unless it was offered in exchange for getting out of the race as he claims...can you say Felony?

depittydawg
05-25-2010, 04:45 PM
Unless it was offered in exchange for getting out of the race as he claims...can you say Felony?

It does sound morally questionable. But I'm not sure what law would have been broken. Seems to me that kind of stuff happens in politics every year.

gman0046
05-25-2010, 04:55 PM
depittydawg, are you an attorney? Obviously not. The TV segment I saw said it's an Impeachable Offense if the job offer came from the White House, specifically Obama.

Cody Covey
05-25-2010, 05:24 PM
its called a bribe...

Gerry Clinchy
05-25-2010, 08:01 PM
I mentioned this situation on another thread a couple of weeks ago.

If the offer was made, then the person offering broke the law. If Sestak is not telling the truth about the offer, then he has broken a law. A law has been broken, only a matter of who is the lawbreaker.

And, yes, last I heard he was back-pedaling saying that he was offered "something", but was very vague as to exactly what.

Arlen went after Sestak's military record in the primary. Evidently, at some point Sestak was relieved of his command. Sestak's explanation sounded like military politics, but Arlen kept harping on that, and it didn't help Arlen.

So, now Sestak is the D candidate for the Senate ... and he's already started compromising his honor if the job offer actually did occur. It was a way that he distanced himself from the DC-insider image during the primary, but he seems as adept as Arlen at spinning to a new position to keep DC support.

If pursued, I'm sure that O would lay it off on someone on the WH staff. Would anyone doubt that Rahm would take it upon himself to make such a move? Just more backroom shenanigans.

Gerry Clinchy
05-25-2010, 08:04 PM
Somebody broke the law .. either the one offering the job or Sestak not telling the truth. Either way the voters lose.

Sestak has already compromised his integrity ... either by telling a falsehood; or by backing down to protect the WH from the truth. Either way, he loses my respect as being someone who will not be just as much a backroom dealer as the bunch in DC now.

YardleyLabs
05-25-2010, 08:14 PM
The guy was actually recruited by Democrats to run against Specter, with commitments of lots of support. When Specter began discussing switching parties -- and giving the Democrats their 60th vote in the Senate -- I am sure there were efforts to convince Sestak to give up his campaign and that part of the discussion included offers of other positions where he could help the party and the country. That isn't Chicago style politics, it is politics in every city and state in the country regardless of party. Parties are constantly recruiting talent and tryng to put them in the spots where they can help most.

Gerry Clinchy
05-25-2010, 08:49 PM
The guy was actually recruited by Democrats to run against Specter, with commitments of lots of support. When Specter began discussing switching parties -- and giving the Democrats their 60th vote in the Senate -- I am sure there were efforts to convince Sestak to give up his campaign and that part of the discussion included offers of other positions where he could help the party and the country. That isn't Chicago style politics, it is politics in every city and state in the country regardless of party. Parties are constantly recruiting talent and tryng to put them in the spots where they can help most.

If it was not of any significance, why should Sestak mention it? To make DC look bad? To make himself look better?

I believe the implication was that he was offered a job in DC by the WH. Guess it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to expect that all of these guys (of whatever party) believe they are above the law :(

(Sorry for the duplicate posts earlier ... techie NOT!)

YardleyLabs
05-25-2010, 08:59 PM
If it was not of any significance, why should Sestak mention it? To make DC look bad? To make himself look better?

I believe the implication was that he was offered a job in DC by the WH. Guess it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to expect that all of these guys (of whatever party) believe they are above the law :(

(Sorry for the duplicate posts earlier ... techie NOT!)
What law was being broken? The entire thrust of Sestak's campaign was that he was the only "real" Democrat running. Obama and Governor Rendell supported Specter, so it became important for Sestak to emphasize that this was all part of a deal and that there was no reason for voters in the primary to feel bound by that deal. He ran a very effective campaign that emphasized Specter's carpetbagging credentials and the fact that Specter a "loyal supporter" for George Bush. I think in the end that Democrat leaders were happy that Sestak won. Specter was clearly showing his age (80) and ran a terrible campaign. The Republican Toomey may still win in November, but I suspect that Sestak will be a stronger opponent than Specter.

Gerry Clinchy
05-25-2010, 09:30 PM
It was reported in the local media (sorry, can't remember which one) that the offering of an incentive to stay out of the primary would have been illegal; or Sestak would have broken a law by a public lie (libel?).

Like you, my thought was simply "politics as usual".

When you stop to think about it, if the WH (or anyone, really) offers a material incentive to a prospective candidate to not run, it does smack of "rigging" an election ... so it would make some sense that there is such a law prohibiting that. And publicly promoting a known untruth would be libelous to an innocent party.

dnf777
05-25-2010, 09:35 PM
If it were say...oh a race horse inspector being offered a position as FEMA director, or some other totally unqualified position, there *may* be a case. But lets see, Sestak was a two year congressman, and a retired naval admiral. Sounds sort of qualified for Navy Secretery, eh? Obama offered Hilary the Sec State job. He offered Biden the VP job. All these folks had other political ambitions? Are these crimes too? This is silly.

huntinman
05-25-2010, 09:50 PM
If it were say...oh a race horse inspector being offered a position as FEMA director, or some other totally unqualified position, there *may* be a case. But lets see, Sestak was a two year congressman, and a retired naval admiral. Sounds sort of qualified for Navy Secretery, eh? Obama offered Hilary the Sec State job. He offered Biden the VP job. All these folks had other political ambitions? Are these crimes too? This is silly.

Yes, but if the job was payment for dropping out of the race...they were trying to buy him off. Not much different than what Blago tried to do in IL. with Bambi's senate seat...

dnf777
05-25-2010, 10:05 PM
They offered a retired admiral and congressman a position as Secretary of the Navy. Do you honestly think positions aren't offered every cycle to help persuade certain people that the party feels they would better serve elsewhere? come on. This is almost as bad as the birther movement. Are we going to have a "jobber" movement now?

I can't remember such sour grapes at losing an election. Even Bush got a fair shake until he proved his incompetence and untrustworthiness. That didn't really occur until his second term, either.

YardleyLabs
05-26-2010, 04:56 AM
I would need to see an actual legal reference. If there is a legal gray area, I suspect that it would have to do with offering someone a governmental job in return for material consideration rather than convincing someone to withdraw from an election for material consideration. For example, if I offer a county commissioner a job in a law firm, but indicate that it is a full time job and he would need to resign as commissioner, have I committed a crime? Of course not. Was my motivation to get a new employee or to remove a commissioner? Who can tell? I am not aware of any laws about such things. However, there are lots of laws against "selling" government jobs. Of course, in that case, Sestak would be party to the crime of offering a bribe in return for a job. However, from a legal perspective, it is unlikely that any case could be made against anyone other than Sestak since Sestak would have been the only one to benefit personally.

Gerry Clinchy
05-26-2010, 05:43 AM
In answer to Dave, I do not believe any specific position was mentioned, or any speculation as to what position it might have been. After the primary, Sestak just said "something", still not specific.

Gosh, haven't we got a lawyer on this board?

Holder declined to investigate the issue. No explanation given by Holder.

M&K's Retrievers
05-26-2010, 08:12 AM
......

Holder declined to investigate the issue. No explanation given by Holder.

My guess is 'cause he was told not to.This guy is worthless as AG.

dnf777
05-26-2010, 08:43 AM
My guess is 'cause he was told not to.This guy is worthless as AG.

My guess is because its a non-issue and not worthy of taxpayer's money.

This is just a case of the birther stuff didn't stick, so lets fling more crap against the wall and see what happens. Since when can party leaders not use organization and leadership to structure their party as they best see fit? I thought that's what leaders did? Put the best man in the best job that they're qualified for. Does anyone dispute that a retired Navy Admiral with congressional experience is NOT qualified for Sec. Navy position?

Impeachable??? Now I KNOW you guys are just trolling!!

depittydawg
05-26-2010, 09:24 AM
My guess is because its a non-issue and not worthy of taxpayer's money.

This is just a case of the birther stuff didn't stick, so lets fling more crap against the wall and see what happens. Since when can party leaders not use organization and leadership to structure their party as they best see fit? I thought that's what leaders did? Put the best man in the best job that they're qualified for. Does anyone dispute that a retired Navy Admiral with congressional experience is NOT qualified for Sec. Navy position?

Impeachable??? Now I KNOW you guys are just trolling!!

You have to ask yourself the critical question first. Does he own race horses?

huntinman
05-26-2010, 10:00 AM
I can't remember such sour grapes at losing an election. Even Bush got a fair shake until he proved his incompetence and untrustworthiness. That didn't really occur until his second term, either.

Give me a break. Bush/Gore?? did you sleep through that whole sorry episode? Bush was villified from before day 1.

You seem a little too eager to shoot down this story on Sestak's bribe from Obama. What are you worried about? (to borrow a phrase used often by the libs). Obama is in total control of the DOJ, congress, senate and everything else. I don't think it will go anywhere, but fun to dream...

M&K's Retrievers
05-26-2010, 10:08 AM
.....

Does anyone dispute that a retired Navy Admiral with congressional experience is NOT qualified for Sec. Navy position?

Impeachable??? Now I KNOW you guys are just trolling!!

Dave, it is illegal to offer a position in return for a favor or some other action i.e. if you drop out of the Senate race, we will appoint you Ambassador to Mars. It may happen all the time but it ain't right and damn sure isn't legal.

Mike

dnf777
05-26-2010, 10:15 AM
Dave, it is illegal to offer a position in return for a favor or some other action i.e. if you drop out of the Senate race, we will appoint you Ambassador to Mars. It may happen all the time but it ain't right and damn sure isn't legal.

Mike

I see your point and understand. I don't understand (because I"m not a lawyer) the exact letter of the law. Trading an appointment for personal financial gain is clearly illegal, as what Blago did. Shuffing people into jobs you see them best fit for is another, even if it happens to require dropping out of a race. Perhaps that's illegal, and if it is, I won't shy away from that as mentioned earlier. But in light of what goes on daily, this is really small beans at best.

However, even not being a lawyer, I can't see how it would be possible to convict when they could just say, "hey, we offered a job...if he *chose* to take it, then obviously he would need to drop his day job..." Techincality, of course, but I can't see it sticking in a court of law!

Besides, I'd rather see legal resources spent on ensuring those who are responsible for the gulf disaster actually pay those whose lives and livelihoods have been destroyed, where we have a chance to make a difference.

M&K's Retrievers
05-26-2010, 10:22 AM
.....

However, even not being a lawyer, I can't see how it would be possible to convict when they could just say, "hey, we offered a job...if he *chose* to take it, then obviously he would need to drop his day job..."



He doesn't even have the "day job". They wanted him to drop out of the running for the "day job". Big difference I think.

depittydawg
05-26-2010, 10:26 AM
I see your point and understand. I don't understand (because I"m not a lawyer) the exact letter of the law. Trading an appointment for personal financial gain is clearly illegal, as what Blago did. Shuffing people into jobs you see them best fit for is another, even if it happens to require dropping out of a race. Perhaps that's illegal, and if it is, I won't shy away from that as mentioned earlier. But in light of what goes on daily, this is really small beans at best.

However, even not being a lawyer, I can't see how it would be possible to convict when they could just say, "hey, we offered a job...if he *chose* to take it, then obviously he would need to drop his day job..." Techincality, of course, but I can't see it sticking in a court of law!

Besides, I'd rather see legal resources spent on ensuring those who are responsible for the gulf disaster actually pay those whose lives and livelihoods have been destroyed, where we have a chance to make a difference.

I don't think there is anything illegal about making a job offer, or exploring job offers with someone. What would constitute illegal action is if the President used force, or coercion with the authority or positional power of his office to dissuade or otherwise discourage someone from running for office. Or if he used illegal means, such as wire tap, headquarter break ins and burglary, as more than one Republican President has done, to thwart political opponents.

M&K's Retrievers
05-26-2010, 10:54 AM
I don't think there is anything illegal about making a job offer, or exploring job offers with someone. .....

It is if you are bribing the individual with the reward of a position provided the individual performs a service or action in return.

Cody Covey
05-26-2010, 11:33 AM
I don't think there is anything illegal about making a job offer, or exploring job offers with someone. What would constitute illegal action is if the President used force, or coercion with the authority or positional power of his office to dissuade or otherwise discourage someone from running for office. Or if he used illegal means, such as wire tap, headquarter break ins and burglary, as more than one Republican President has done, to thwart political opponents.I'm not sure if you're feigning ignorance or if you really are that ignorant but there is a HUGE difference between, "If you drop out of the race we will give you this job" and, "Hey, would you like this job"

Thats the distinction and one that without multiple witnesses willing to testify against the WH or recordings will be impossible to prove and will just hurt both Sestak and the WH in the end...

Eric Johnson
05-26-2010, 11:46 AM
Apparently any or all of 3 sections may apply:

a. Section 18 USC 600 says that a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government, in return for a political act.
b. Section 18 USC 211 says you cannot accept anything of value in return for hiring somebody.
c. Section 18 USC 595 prohibits a federal official from interfering with the nomination or election for office.

Eric

aandw
05-26-2010, 12:06 PM
i bet specter knows the circumstances. wonder if he will ever come forth? he is the only one that doesn't have much to lose. or if toomey wins in november, everything may come out. sestak and WH have too much to lose right now.

Gerry Clinchy
05-26-2010, 12:30 PM
He doesn't even have the "day job". They wanted him to drop out of the running for the "day job". Big difference I think.


Obviously, offering a sitting Congressperson a job in the administration is not illegal ... Hillary is Sec of State.

Gerry Clinchy
05-26-2010, 12:34 PM
Apparently any or all of 3 sections may apply:

a. Section 18 USC 600 says that a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government, in return for a political act.
b. Section 18 USC 211 says you cannot accept anything of value in return for hiring somebody.
c. Section 18 USC 595 prohibits a federal official from interfering with the nomination or election for office.

Eric

Sounds like they would apply if Sestak's allegation is true. Lack of witnesses would make it hard to prove. And, as another poster has stated, Sestak sure isn't going to make any waves at this point.

Richard Fuquay
05-26-2010, 03:53 PM
I think one problem with calling this bribery is that all the administration would do would be to just offer him the position unconditionally. If he takes it he has to drop out of the race. If he doesn't no problem. They may be making the offer for a reason which is political, but they would never have to offer the quid pro quo, so no bribe.

starjack
05-26-2010, 04:07 PM
I Like Watching The Dem Cut There Own Throats.

BrianW
05-26-2010, 04:08 PM
Sounds like either way it goes, it just helps Pat Toomey.
I heard before the primary, that he polled better in the general election against Specter, but was about even against Sestak. Now that Sestak is the opponent...

YardleyLabs
05-26-2010, 04:24 PM
Apparently any or all of 3 sections may apply:

a. Section 18 USC 600 says that a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government, in return for a political act.
b. Section 18 USC 211 says you cannot accept anything of value in return for hiring somebody.
c. Section 18 USC 595 prohibits a federal official from interfering with the nomination or election for office.

Eric
Section 18 of USC 600 states:

"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."

This is basically written to prevent vote buying. I don't believe that it has ever been interpreted or enforced in a manner that would apply to this situation.

18 USC Section 211 states (relevant part only):

"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.*

It would seem that this would not apply since there is no personal benefit alleged.

18 USC Section 595 prohibits any administrative (not elected) employee of the Federal government from "us[ing] his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate." This does not appear to apply on several grounds. First, what was done would not be considered interference in an election. Second, a cabinet position can only be offered by the President subject to Senate confirmation and neither the President nor the Senate is covered.

In any event, extending the bribery laws in this way would set precedents that would makes almost everything done in Washington illegal.

Cody Covey
05-26-2010, 04:42 PM
In any event, extending the bribery laws in this way would set precedents that would makes almost everything done in Washington illegal.
Thats a bad thing? Maybe you're just way smarter than I am but I just don't see how you can make a case that he is that there is no personal benefit alleged, or that the first statute only is for "vote buying". That would mean that you can bribe people as long as there is no money exchanged?

YardleyLabs
05-26-2010, 09:12 PM
Thats a bad thing? Maybe you're just way smarter than I am but I just don't see how you can make a case that he is that there is no personal benefit alleged, or that the first statute only is for "vote buying". That would mean that you can bribe people as long as there is no money exchanged?

A person running for office in a party primary can run without support from the party, but ultimately will almost always lose if he or she does. Parties make efforts to manage the nomination process within limits to improve the likelihood that the party's candidate will ultimately prevail in the general election. The processes involved include things like managing the flow of contribution dollars, recruiting strong candidates and getting them to run for lower level positions to gain experience while grooming them for higher offices, etc. Local party chairmen and national party officials do this all the time regardless of party. It is an essential element in building a strong "team" to help the party win and retain seats. Incentives come in both positive and negative forms. Candidates preferred by a party will receive financial and logistical support, while others do not. Signatures on nominating petitions will be challenged. Some candidates may be offered future support or support for alternative offices to prevent them from challenging a favored candidate. These activities are both normal and appropriate. None of them change the fact that the voters have the final say. If someone wants to start a witch hunt on these types of issues, do it with an even hand. Did Mitch McConnell interfere in the Kentucky primary (with a similar lack of success) to support his chosen candidate against Rand Paul? I suspect that he did as often as he could. What pressure did Bush and his administration bring against Toomey six years ago when Bush supported Specter's reelection? What demands were made on Specter following his election to force him to withdraw his opposition to the appointment of an assortment of judicial candidates that he had previously opposed? All of these are activities that could conceivably be called efforts to affect an election or provide future employment in return for political actions.

dnf777
05-26-2010, 09:20 PM
I am much more concerned about the legalized bribery and prostitution that occurs daily on K-street, than an immanently qualified man being offered an executive appointment.

My question regarding Sestak, is why is he opening his mouth on this subject? Perhaps he's pissed at Obama and the machine for not supporting him? That doesn't quite float either, as going public will likely bring him as much grief as anyone else, esp as a junior senator.

david gibson
05-26-2010, 09:29 PM
A person running for office in a party primary can run without support from the party, but ultimately will almost always lose if he or she does. Parties make efforts to manage the nomination process within limits to improve the likelihood that the party's candidate will ultimately prevail in the general election. The processes involved include things like managing the flow of contribution dollars, recruiting strong candidates and getting them to run for lower level positions to gain experience while grooming them for higher offices, etc. Local party chairmen and national party officials do this all the time regardless of party. It is an essential element in building a strong "team" to help the party win and retain seats. Incentives come in both positive and negative forms. Candidates preferred by a party will receive financial and logistical support, while others do not. Signatures on nominating petitions will be challenged. Some candidates may be offered future support or support for alternative offices to prevent them from challenging a favored candidate. These activities are both normal and appropriate. None of them change the fact that the voters have the final say. If someone wants to start a witch hunt on these types of issues, do it with an even hand. Did Mitch McConnell interfere in the Kentucky primary (with a similar lack of success) to support his chosen candidate against Rand Paul? I suspect that he did as often as he could. What pressure did Bush and his administration bring against Toomey six years ago when Bush supported Specter's reelection? What demands were made on Specter following his election to force him to withdraw his opposition to the appointment of an assortment of judicial candidates that he had previously opposed? All of these are activities that could conceivably be called efforts to affect an election or provide future employment in return for political actions.

maybe so, but they were not out and out offers for a cush job to in return sit back and shut up. big difference.

its just basic whorehouse ideology my friend. at some point something takes it over the line and beyond that of consensual politics.

hows that 23% obama support side of yours doing so far?

oh i bet we could take it a bit further. amongst waterfowl hunters who train retrievers as their hunting buddies and cherish their 2nd amendment rights i imagine you are more like in the lower 2.3% - if that! hell, even my college daughters boyfriend with a liberal arts degree is smart enough to be less liberal that you!

YardleyLabs
05-26-2010, 09:36 PM
maybe so, but they were not out and out offers for a cush job to in return sit back and shut up. big difference.

its just basic whorehouse ideology my friend. at some point something takes it over the line and beyond that of consensual politics.

hows that 23% obama support side of yours doing so far?

oh i bet we could take it a bit further. amongst waterfowl hunters who train retrievers as their hunting buddies and cherish their 2nd amendment rights i imagine you are more like in the lower 2.3% - if that! hell, even my college daughters boyfriend with a liberal arts degree is smart enough to be less liberal that you!
What in my comments about this issue falls into a category of either liberal or conservative? Issues don't make sense because they serve partisan interests. They make sense or not on their own merits. This particular tempest in a teapot is without merit.

dnf777
05-26-2010, 10:07 PM
its just basic whorehouse ideology my friend. at some point something takes it over the line and beyond that of consensual politics.


"whorehouse ideology" and "consensual politics"?

Are you talking about Sestak or David Vitter?

Eric Johnson
05-26-2010, 10:20 PM
Jeff-

All of these are a part of the criminal code. On this basis, conspiracy could be alleged in any case even though no actual value was exchanged.

Before I posted these, I checked with an attorney. Her comment to "could these apply?" was "Oh my, yes." Of course whether or not they do apply depends on the fact pattern and that's unknown at this time.

Eric

Henry V
05-26-2010, 11:00 PM
Oh my gosh. You mean to tell me that a presidential administration offered a potential Senate candidate a job in their administration so that the party's preferred candidate could then run unopposed?
Clearly "high crimes" worthy of impeachment;)

M&K's Retrievers
05-26-2010, 11:20 PM
Jeff, Dave, Henry, I don't think this is just going to quietly go away. Nor should it.

Mike

Cody Covey
05-26-2010, 11:26 PM
Oh my gosh. You mean to tell me that a presidential administration offered a potential Senate candidate a job in their administration so that the party's preferred candidate could then run unopposed?
Clearly "high crimes" worthy of impeachment;)

unfortunately bribery is an impeachable offense. This may be business as usually but all of Jeff's examples, where he has no proof nor allegations just questions, are not Hey if you get out of the race and I'll give you a job. That is bribery period, whether it happens or not...it is what it is...

YardleyLabs
05-27-2010, 05:04 AM
unfortunately bribery is an impeachable offense. This may be business as usually but all of Jeff's examples, where he has no proof nor allegations just questions, are not Hey if you get out of the race and I'll give you a job. That is bribery period, whether it happens or not...it is what it is...
Well, section 211 obviously doesn't apply since it only affects administrative, not elected, positions. However, if 18 USC 600 applies in this case, it would also apply equally to the appointment of Congressional staff. I suggest we begin by appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the hiring and firing of each staff person of each member of the Senate and House. Then, since this is a matter of criminal law, we should start back through prior administrations to investigate the appointments of all Cabinet officers and members of the White House staff. The fact is that all of these jobs are given to people based on their politics and political activity. There is no reason to believe that Sestak warrants investigation any more than, say, staff appointments by Mitch McConnell. Better yet, why don't we focus first on the last 800 judges receiving Federal appointments.

dnf777
05-27-2010, 05:07 AM
Jeff, Dave, Henry, I don't think this is just going to quietly go away. Nor should it.

Mike

That, we can agree on.
If Obama wipes his butt in the wrong direction, the right wingers will make a high-crimes issue out of it! This is taking the bizarre and political hacking to a new level.

Hew
05-27-2010, 06:47 AM
Oh my gosh. You mean to tell me that a presidential administration offered a potential Senate candidate a job in their administration so that the party's preferred candidate could then run unopposed?
Is that the kind of Hope and Change you, Yardley, Buzz, DNF, et al voted for? You guys must be so proud.

road kill
05-27-2010, 07:27 AM
Oh my gosh. You mean to tell me that a presidential administration offered a potential Senate candidate a job in their administration so that the party's preferred candidate could then run unopposed?
Clearly "high crimes" worthy of impeachment;)
Yes, Henry, you are correct.
If that happened, it would be illegal.

Glad to help.:D



rk

aandw
05-27-2010, 07:35 AM
it surprises me that you "independents" wouldn't want to get to the bottom of this. i saw a replay of sestak saying they offered him a job to get out of the race. if they offered him the job based on his qualifications, fine. if they offered him the job to clear the way for specter, (because they owed him a favor for switching parties) then it is bribery.
your politics as usual defense won't float. this guy promised hope and change and transparency, but i guess that is politics as usual fo you too.

M&K's Retrievers
05-27-2010, 08:15 AM
That, we can agree on.
If Obama wipes his butt in the wrong direction, the right wingers will make a high-crimes issue out of it! This is taking the bizarre and political hacking to a new level.

It is what it is. Bribery. Pure and simple. Oh, did I mention illegal?

luvmylabs23139
05-27-2010, 04:56 PM
When asked directly today Obumma refused to answer the question.

Henry V
05-27-2010, 05:22 PM
While you all are at it, you should consider holding hearings and impeaching Reagan after the fact too.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19811126&id=ibcsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5060,5317656

Interesting discussion of this at http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1959771

Cody Covey
05-27-2010, 05:42 PM
While you all are at it, you should consider holding hearings and impeaching Reagan after the fact too.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19811126&id=ibcsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5060,5317656

Interesting discussion of this at http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1959771

You read the article? It specifically states the the man in question wasn't contacted and he hadn't contacted the white house. Where here Sestak says he was directly contacted by the white house and the White house has refused to talk about it at all really. If he is wrong the white house should come out blasting him but instead they have remained essentially silent.

YardleyLabs
05-27-2010, 05:57 PM
You read the article? It specifically states the the man in question wasn't contacted and he hadn't contacted the white house. Where here Sestak says he was directly contacted by the white house and the White house has refused to talk about it at all really. If he is wrong the white house should come out blasting him but instead they have remained essentially silent.
Actually it says that Ed Rollins, who had been announced as White House Chief of Staff, communicated the job offer from the President. That would make Ed Rollins guilty and possibly Reagan if Rollins was acting with his knowledge as was intimated. The fact that the offer was made was publicly stated by Rollins in an interview. The laws being cited were enacted in the 1970's. Clearly, neither Rollins or anyone else believed they applied. There is a reason why some jobs in each administration are considered to be political -- they are offered to people who have demonstrated political loyalty and continue to demonstrate political loyalty through their actions. By the definitions being suggested, virtually all such appointments could arguably be called evidence of bribery.

EDIT: I still think it would be great to appoint a special prosecutor with the proviso that there first be an investigation of all congressional staff appointments with particular emphasis on those in leadership positions over the last ten years. After Kenneth Starr, I don't think any President will appoint a substantive special prosecutor again. Bush was very clear that he believed that such investigations served no valid purpose other than to destroy the presidency and rejected all such calls. I think Obama should do the same.

dnf777
05-27-2010, 06:15 PM
Actually it says that Ed Rollins, who had been announced as White House Chief of Staff, communicated the job offer from the President. That would make Ed Rollins guilty and possibly Reagan if Rollins was acting with his knowledge as was intimated. The fact that the offer was made was publicly stated by Rollins in an interview. The laws being cited were enacted in the 1970's. Clearly, neither Rollins or anyone else believed they applied. There is a reason why some jobs in each administration are considered to be political -- they are offered to people who have demonstrated political loyalty and continue to demonstrate political loyalty through their actions. By the definitions being suggested, virtually all such appointments could arguably be called evidence of bribery.


I will be watching to see if Ed Rollins is queried on this situation. I usually enjoy his commentary, and although he is a retired gunfighter, he certainly has poignant insight and opinion.

I hear the arguments based on legal technicalities in this case (current Sestak case) but if these pass legal muster, then almost every executive appointment of a person holding elected office poised to run for re-election is subject to review as you mention. As Goose said in TopGun, the list will be long and distinguished!

depittydawg
05-27-2010, 06:37 PM
You read the article? It specifically states the the man in question wasn't contacted and he hadn't contacted the white house. Where here Sestak says he was directly contacted by the white house and the White house has refused to talk about it at all really. If he is wrong the white house should come out blasting him but instead they have remained essentially silent.

One of the lessons Reagan taught the world, and Bush the Younger perfected is, when asked say nothing. If pressed act stupid. We'll see if the Obama White House read that memo. Clinton's ego got in his way and eventually did him in.

Gerry Clinchy
05-27-2010, 07:48 PM
I hear the arguments based on legal technicalities in this case (current Sestak case) but if these pass legal muster, then almost every executive appointment of a person holding elected office poised to run for re-election is subject to review as you mention.

Then it may be a sad commentary on ourselves, that we have come to expect corruption in politics as SOP.

BonMallari
05-27-2010, 08:00 PM
One of the lessons Reagan taught the world, and Bush the Younger perfected is, when asked say nothing. If pressed act stupid. We'll see if the Obama White House read that memo. Clinton's ego got in his way and eventually did him in.

and if Watergate, Monicagate,Scooter Libby,all taught us is that the COVERUP is usually worse than the crime

YardleyLabs
05-27-2010, 08:06 PM
Then it may be a sad commentary on ourselves, that we have come to expect corruption in politics as SOP.
We elect a President to be a leader, not a civil servant or bureaucrat. Political leadership makes herding cats look easy. Most issues, even in this polarized period, are effectively resolved by acclamation just as most criminal cases are settled with guilty pleas. For more complicated issues, action is the product of coalition. I'll focus on your priority if you focus on mine. In some ways, immigration reform is a perfect example. In Pennsylvania, it is simply not an important issue. Immigrants in general, and illegal immigrants specifically, represent a tiny part of our population. However, dealing with the effects of coal emissions from Ohio power plants is a much bigger issue because the prevailing winds send those emissions to us rather than keeping them in Ohio where they belong. The leadership of Federal agencies is placed in the hands of political leaders to permit the President to do his job, just as the leadership and staffing of congress is placed in the hands of elected officials who are able to appoint their own staff without review. Even the structure of our Federal agencies is designed to provide important stakeholders with better avenues for pleading their prioroties. We have a Commerce Department that is structured to assist businesses and to give them a natural ally to argue their case. We have a Labor Department created to do the same for labor. The fact that political appointments are part of the process used to cement the alliances needed to lead is not corruption, it is an essential element of the political process.

david gibson
05-27-2010, 09:01 PM
We elect a President to be a leader, not a civil servant or bureaucrat. Political leadership makes herding cats look easy. Most issues, even in this polarized period, are effectively resolved by acclamation just as most criminal cases are settled with guilty pleas. For more complicated issues, action is the product of coalition. I'll focus on your priority if you focus on mine. In some ways, immigration reform is a perfect example. In Pennsylvania, it is simply not an important issue. Immigrants in general, and illegal immigrants specifically, represent a tiny part of our population. However, dealing with the effects of coal emissions from Ohio power plants is a much bigger issue because the prevailing winds send those emissions to us rather than keeping them in Ohio where they belong. The leadership of Federal agencies is placed in the hands of political leaders to permit the President to do his job, just as the leadership and staffing of congress is placed in the hands of elected officials who are able to appoint their own staff without review. Even the structure of our Federal agencies is designed to provide important stakeholders with better avenues for pleading their prioroties. We have a Commerce Department that is structured to assist businesses and to give them a natural ally to argue their case. We have a Labor Department created to do the same for labor. The fact that political appointments are part of the process used to cement the alliances needed to lead is not corruption, it is an essential element of the political process.

you know, you can wax eloquently on occasion.

understandable so during cold winter months, but shouldnt you be working or training now in warmer weather? is this POTUS stuff really what turns you on?

sad.

road kill
05-27-2010, 09:12 PM
We elect a President to be a leader, not a civil servant or bureaucrat. Political leadership makes herding cats look easy. Most issues, even in this polarized period, are effectively resolved by acclamation just as most criminal cases are settled with guilty pleas. For more complicated issues, action is the product of coalition. I'll focus on your priority if you focus on mine. In some ways, immigration reform is a perfect example. In Pennsylvania, it is simply not an important issue. Immigrants in general, and illegal immigrants specifically, represent a tiny part of our population. However, dealing with the effects of coal emissions from Ohio power plants is a much bigger issue because the prevailing winds send those emissions to us rather than keeping them in Ohio where they belong. The leadership of Federal agencies is placed in the hands of political leaders to permit the President to do his job, just as the leadership and staffing of congress is placed in the hands of elected officials who are able to appoint their own staff without review. Even the structure of our Federal agencies is designed to provide important stakeholders with better avenues for pleading their prioroties. We have a Commerce Department that is structured to assist businesses and to give them a natural ally to argue their case. We have a Labor Department created to do the same for labor. The fact that political appointments are part of the process used to cement the alliances needed to lead is not corruption, it is an essential element of the political process.

Couple of things;

For one that is so well read, articulate and intelligent it seems impossible that you even believe your post!!:rolleyes:

I rode my motorcycle over some back roads today thru some less disireable parts of towns such as Beloit (WI), Rockford (IL), Davenport (IA) and Muscatine (IA).

You truly beleive that there are immigration issues only in the S/W??
BULL CRAP!!!!!
And YOU know it.

Each of these towns are over run and the people we talked to are afraid and have had enough.



It is probably the second biggest problem in the USA behind the economy & jobs, which are one.
One actually feeding off the other.


Get you head out of the sand...........



stan b

YardleyLabs
05-27-2010, 09:22 PM
Couple of things;

For one that is so well read, articulate and intelligent it seems impossible that you even believe your post!!:rolleyes:

I rode my motorcycle over some back roads today thru some less disireable parts of towns such as Beloit (WI), Rockford (IL), Davenport (IA) and Muscatine (IA).

You truly beleive that there are immigration issues only in the S/W??
BULL CRAP!!!!!
And YOU know it.

Each of these towns are over run and the people we talked to are afraid and have had enough.



It is probably the second biggest problem in the USA behind the economy & jobs, which are one.
One actually feeding off the other.


Get you head out of the sand...........



stan b
I didn't say immigration was an issue only in the southwest. I said it wasn't a real issue in Pennsylvania. Check the census data. We have one of the lowest immigrant populations -- legal and illegal -- in the US.


you know, you can wax eloquently on occasion.

understandable so during cold winter months, but shouldnt you be working or training now in warmer weather? is this POTUS stuff really what turns you on?

sad.
David, Thursday before a trial is never a big training day. I dropped one of my dogs off in Maryland for breeding yesterday, and spent Monday and Tuesday training all day. I'll be heading down to a trial for the weekend since one of my dirls is running and I went to photograph other people's dogs. The only trick is figuring out how to juggle the litter eight 5 1/2 week old puppies that I will need to take with me.

road kill
05-27-2010, 09:33 PM
I didn't say immigration was an issue only in the southwest. I said it wasn't a real issue in Pennsylvania. Check the census data. We have one of the lowest immigrant populations -- legal and illegal -- in the US.


David, Thursday before a trial is never a big training day. I dropped one of my dogs off in Maryland for breeding yesterday, and spent Monday and Tuesday training all day. I'll be heading down to a trial for the weekend since one of my dirls is running and I went to photograph other people's dogs. The only trick is figuring out how to juggle the litter eight 5 1/2 week old puppies that I will need to take with me.
Really, the census data reflects how many "illegal" aliens are in a given state?

How many "illegal" aliens has the Census indicated in PA?

AK??
How's about IA??

Do you have the census data on "illegal" aliens in every state?

Or, are you blowing smoke because nobody knows for sure how many "illegal" aliens are in any state right now??

ahem......:rolleyes:



rk

YardleyLabs
05-27-2010, 09:39 PM
Really, the census data reflects how many "illegal" aliens are in a given state?

How many "illegal" aliens has the Census indicated in PA?

AK??
How's about IA??

Do you have the census data on "illegal" aliens in every state?

Or, are you blowing smoke because nobody knows for sure how many "illegal" aliens are in any state right now??

ahem......:rolleyes:



rk
Census data indicates the number of non-citizens. Separate survey data is used to estimate the numbers that are here illegally. Different methods are used in different studies but the estimates are relatively consistent. By the way, the general consensus is that the illegal population grew dramatically in the period 2001-2006 and that it has shrunk since then. Contrary to popular claims, there is no evidence that I have seen the illegal population grew following Reagan's amnesty program.

david gibson
05-27-2010, 09:54 PM
putting my photo skills and equipment to work - a local conservative talk show host put forth the proposition that we could clandestinely photograph those that pick up stray day laborers at local Home Depot parking lots and publicize their license plates as well as signs on the side of their trucks if present - embarrass them like they used to do with men that frequented massage parlors etc.....

sounds like fun, i may take them up on that! i can get a license plate at 400 yds away......

M&K's Retrievers
05-27-2010, 10:55 PM
you know, you can wax eloquently on occasion.

understandable so during cold winter months, but shouldnt you be working or training now in warmer weather? is this POTUS stuff really what turns you on?

sad.

Cut Jeff some slack. He has/had a broken leg.

dnf777
05-28-2010, 06:20 AM
Jeff,
just curious, when you're slopping around the marsh grass shooting those pix.....do you keep a clear protective filter on your lens, or do you shoot with naked lenses?? (like the real photographers all *say* they do):cool:

road kill
05-28-2010, 07:26 AM
Seems some disagree with you, Mr. Yardley!!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214723,00.html?sPage=fnc.specialsections/immigration

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2010/05/21/news/local_state/doc4beeb6c9c1c18828042186.txt

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2010/05/07/commentary/op-eds/doc4be466e612399785639619.txt

http://illegalaliennewsupdate.com/archives/7365

Just a handfull of samplings from "The Bulletin."



rk

Gerry Clinchy
05-28-2010, 07:44 AM
The fact that political appointments are part of the process used to cement the alliances needed to lead is not corruption, it is an essential element of the political process.

If there weren't abuses of the legitimate political process, I doubt there would have been laws enacted.

Your lengthy explanation does not convince me that offering a paid position for a political expediency is something that should be so readily accepted as the norm.

The POTUS, all elected officials, and civil servants are expected to abide by the laws, just like the rest of us.

YardleyLabs
05-28-2010, 09:30 AM
Jeff,
just curious, when you're slopping around the marsh grass shooting those pix.....do you keep a clear protective filter on your lens, or do you shoot with naked lenses?? (like the real photographers all *say* they do):cool:
I always have a UV filter as a protector. It's a lot cheaper to replace a filter (even at $160) than a lens.

M&K's Retrievers
05-28-2010, 09:42 AM
Do you think Sestak is sleeping with one eye open?

Eric Johnson
05-28-2010, 09:43 AM
While you all are at it, you should consider holding hearings and impeaching Reagan after the fact too.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19811126&id=ibcsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5060,5317656


Two different situations. In the Hayakawa case, he was told that if he elected not to run, there would be a job. In the Sestak case, there's an allegation of a quid pro quo. That was not reported in the the earlier case. It's subtle but very different.

I also note a very not-so-subtle difference in the cases. In the earlier case, the parties were candid and talked of the situation. Now the parties are looking for cover as someone apparently doesn't want exposure.

Dick Morris last night offered a solution. He says that the Attorney General in either Pennsylvania or Virginia ought to call a grand jury and subpoena Rep Sestak. That would eliminate AG Holder from the equation and would make the investigation more credible as it would be an outside authority doing the investigating. That would also settle the Republicans call for an independent prosecutor.

Eric

dnf777
05-28-2010, 09:49 AM
So if there's taped converstation revealing "if you choose not to run, in return for that favor, we'll give you a job" then they get impeached, go to jail and hard labor, etc... If they said, "if you happen to decide, on your own, not to run, there will be an unrelated job offer made to you" then they can't make it stick, and life goes on?

Good luck making it pass legal muster. It'll never happen.
I like the state AG investigating though, but if he's a dem, or even a republican who fails to get a conviction, the right will just cry favoritism, RINO, etc....like they have with everything else.

subroc
05-28-2010, 09:51 AM
I am most concerned with the left not caring about bribery and a willingm\ness to overlook a crime for the sake of party loyalty.

david gibson
05-28-2010, 10:13 AM
I always have a UV filter as a protector. It's a lot cheaper to replace a filter (even at $160) than a lens.

they dont make them for my lens, so you use the sunshade as the protector and shoot with a naked lens.. its pretty deep so it takes a lot to get in far enough to touch the glass.

last week i was shooting this bear in northwest quebec, www.outdoorsphotographyusa.com/quebec.htm shortly after a rain. it was a royal PIA. all the underbrush was wet and very thick, every fling of a vine or branch sent water drops everywhere. i had to stop and take the lens shade off 10 times to clean the lens. i sure wished there was a filter that morning...

dixidawg
05-28-2010, 10:17 AM
White House Asked Bill Clinton to Urge Sestak to Drop Out of Senate Race


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/28/white-house-asked-clinton-urge-sestak-drop-senate-race/


So they figure that since blaming Bush is getting old, let's try blaming Clinton :-)

Buzz
05-28-2010, 10:52 AM
I am glad that so many republicans are concerned about White House interference in a democratic primary.

dixidawg
05-28-2010, 10:54 AM
I am glad that so many republicans are concerned about White House interference in a democratic primary.


But not concerns that so few Democrats are?

Bayou Magic
05-28-2010, 10:59 AM
I am glad that the dems think there is nothing wrong with back room deals and possible outright bribes. What is wrong with seeking the truth and let the chips fall?

How long will it take for whoever eventually leads an investigation to offer Sestak immunity for disclosing the details of the offer?

fp

dnf777
05-28-2010, 11:58 AM
This just keeps getting more and more ridiculous. Obviously, there were real threats and persuasions along with this job offer, as he decided to drop out of the race, an let Specter continue his senate tenure. Oh.....wait....that's not what happened. MAYBE IT WAS A FREAKIN' JOB OFFER IN A POSITION THEY THOUGHT HE WAS QUALIFIED FOR AT THIS POINT IN HIS POLITICAL CAREER!!!

Eric Johnson
05-28-2010, 12:07 PM
Good luck making it pass legal muster. It'll never happen.


There's a difference between "After the primary, if you don't win we'll find something for you" and "If you'll agree not to run, we'll find something for you." This sort of thing passes "legal muster" all the time. Here in Alabama the most recent case involved our Gov and a HealthSouth executive.

There may be another case underway right now involving a possible quid pro quod between gambling interests and several state legislators. Grand jury is hearing these cases right now.

Eric

achiro
05-28-2010, 12:20 PM
This just keeps getting more and more ridiculous. Obviously, there were real threats and persuasions along with this job offer, as he decided to drop out of the race, an let Specter continue his senate tenure. Oh.....wait....that's not what happened. MAYBE IT WAS A FREAKIN' JOB OFFER IN A POSITION THEY THOUGHT HE WAS QUALIFIED FOR AT THIS POINT IN HIS POLITICAL CAREER!!!

Whether this is a big deal or not, if this was something Bush/Cheney were being accused of you would be going nucking futs! :rolleyes:

Henry V
05-28-2010, 12:33 PM
Here is a good perspective. http://voices.kansascity.com/node/9169

The feeding frenzy on this non-issue is a great diversion from other realities of the day. Keep pulling that thread or maybe, you could go back to the "Czar" or the "birth certificate" talk or at least work in the "Chicago thugs" and "socialism" angle into this one.

Perhaps, it would be smarter to hype the fact that the administrations chosen candidate lost which clearly demonstrates a failure by the administration.

Glad to see you all have such high standards now with no tolerance for usual politics.
Heck, of a job Brownie; have all the no-bid contracts you want Halliburton; here is a pallet full of $100's Iraqis, and appoint industry insiders to all regulatory agencies regards,

dnf777
05-28-2010, 12:33 PM
Whether this is a big deal or not, if this was something Bush/Cheney were being accused of you would be going nucking futs! :rolleyes:

Not quite. Those guys did plenty of blatantly unethical, dishonest stunts, that we didn't have to split hairs trying to find legal minutiae to hang them on! Just for starters, I'd like to hear what Cheney told oil drilling companies about safety regs, the vigor of inspections they can expect (you know, filling out their own safety inspections sheets in pencil??) and what other favors to expect. That's a *little* more germaine to the lives of coastal Louisianans and all Americans who care about the wetlands right now, than a job offer to a primary candidate. (who was qualified for the job he was being offered, by the way)

YardleyLabs
05-28-2010, 12:34 PM
Whether this is a big deal or not, if this was something Bush/Cheney were being accused of you would be going nucking futs! :rolleyes:
Actually not. It literally happens all the time and Rollins didn't feel he was confessing to a crime when he had such a conversation on behalf of Reagan. Interesting that no one is focusing on the fact that before Sestak was offered a job to quit the primary, he was previously solicited to enter the primary. I am sure that he was undoubtedly promised some support. Isn't that bribery also? Maybe it's bribery every time a party tries to woo a candidate. I suspect that every Republican party leader that is now trying to make this an issue has done some equivalent trading in the past and will do it again in the future.

Henry V
05-28-2010, 12:45 PM
Two different situations. In the Hayakawa case, he was told that if he elected not to run, there would be a job. In the Sestak case, there's an allegation of a quid pro quo. That was not reported in the the earlier case. It's subtle but very different.

I also note a very not-so-subtle difference in the cases. In the earlier case, the parties were candid and talked of the situation. Now the parties are looking for cover as someone apparently doesn't want exposure.

Dick Morris last night offered a solution. He says that the Attorney General in either Pennsylvania or Virginia ought to call a grand jury and subpoena Rep Sestak. That would eliminate AG Holder from the equation and would make the investigation more credible as it would be an outside authority doing the investigating. That would also settle the Republicans call for an independent prosecutor.

Eric
Offering someone a job before they have announced their candidacy is a job offer. Now, it turns out the job was an unpaid position on a panel. There is no quid pro quo. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/28/joe-sestak-bill-clinton-s_n_593299.html
Keep spinning the subtle differences and waste energy on investigations.

huntinman
05-28-2010, 12:58 PM
Offering someone a job before they have announced their candidacy is a job offer. Now, it turns out the job was an unpaid position on a panel. There is no quid pro quo. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/28/joe-sestak-bill-clinton-s_n_593299.html
Keep spinning the subtle differences and waste energy on investigations.

Consider your source...

Bayou Magic
05-28-2010, 01:03 PM
Offering someone a job before they have announced their candidacy is a job offer. Now, it turns out the job was an unpaid position on a panel. There is no quid pro quo. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/28/joe-sestak-bill-clinton-s_n_593299.html
Keep spinning the subtle differences and waste energy on investigations.

Riiiiiiight!!!!

The intention of the WH proposal was to pursuade Sestak to step aside and not run against Spector. Do you, or anyone for that matter, really believe that the WH made such a weak offer (unpaid position on a panel)? Where is the benefit to Sestak to even consider such a lame offer? The WH political machine is many things that I don't like, but they are far from stupid!

Do I think anything will will come of this? No! Again, they are not dumb, and I'm guessing there is no firm evidence of the conversation/offer.

fp

Cody Covey
05-28-2010, 01:07 PM
oh bribes can only take place if money is exchanged?

Bribery, a form of pecuniary corruption, is an act implying money or gift given that alters the behavior of the recipient

dnf777
05-28-2010, 01:08 PM
Consider your source...

Ahhh yes...the attack the source when you don't like the information, or it doesn't fit the agenda. I don't read or watch the huffington post, but I heard this on two news channels today.

I hope you have someone to clean the walls at the RNC nut-house...the kooks are throwing everything they've got against the walls to see what sticks!

Hey, on a more serious note, have a great weekend all, and don't forget our fallen brothers and sisters on Monday!

dave

YardleyLabs
05-28-2010, 01:23 PM
Riiiiiiight!!!!

The intention of the WH proposal was to pursuade Sestak to step aside and not run against Spector. Do you, or anyone for that matter, really believe that the WH made such a weak offer (unpaid position on a panel)? Where is the benefit to Sestak to even consider such a lame offer? The WH political machine is many things that I don't like, but they are far from stupid!

Do I think anything will will come of this? No! Again, they are not dumb, and I'm guessing there is no firm evidence of the conversation/offer.

fp
In fact, the WH would have been reluctant to see Sestak leave the House. He has been a strong representative with a real future, What was being offered was increased visibility and influence. Beyond that, I suspect that the WH would have loved to have him in reserve since the odds are good that Specter might not have lived through another full term anyway given his age and medical condition, and he certainly would never have run again. For a man in Sestak's position, a cabinet job would have offered neither more money nor more influence.

huntinman
05-28-2010, 01:34 PM
For something that was supposedly a non-event, the left sure is worked about about this situation. Circling the wagons as fast as possible. If the report that they put out is true, why did it take the WH months to come up with it? Also were bambi and slick willie having lunch together yesterday jsut because they enjoy each other's company? Let's get our story(ies) straight.

Eric Johnson
05-28-2010, 01:43 PM
Henry-

You seem to have confused me with a person who has something invested in this battle.

dnf777 said that it probably won't pass legal muster. I merely pointed out that there was a difference between the two examples and why they could have vastly different outcomes....as former Gov Don Siegelman has discovered.

I normally wouldn't even respond but have a sense that you'd take that as a "win for our side" when in fact I'm not for either side. I'm simply watching this play out. There aren't enough facts known to take one side or the other.

Eric

M&K's Retrievers
05-28-2010, 01:52 PM
Slick Willie strikes again.

Dave Flint
05-28-2010, 01:52 PM
When asked directly today Obumma refused to answer the question.

LOL, He more or less said he was still working on his story.

Buzz
05-28-2010, 01:53 PM
There aren't enough facts known to take one side or the other.

Eric

Cool! Something I can agree with.

For the record, I was always in favor of Sesak running against Arlin, and it ticks me off to have the White House interfering. I imagine they promised to the hilt to support ol Arlin if he would switch parties and give them the votes they needed on HCR.

BonMallari
05-28-2010, 01:55 PM
Slick Willie strikes again.

I can see it now ..."I did not offer Joe Sestak one of my cigars" :p:p

Buzz
05-28-2010, 02:02 PM
I love it.


http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/30549/bribe.jpg

YardleyLabs
05-28-2010, 02:02 PM
For something that was supposedly a non-event, the left sure is worked about about this situation. Circling the wagons as fast as possible. If the report that they put out is true, why did it take the WH months to come up with it? Also were bambi and slick willie having lunch together yesterday jsut because they enjoy each other's company? Let's get our story(ies) straight.
The "event" is not the efforts to convince Sestak to withdraw. The "event" is the scorched earth efforts by the right to cripple whatever they cannot defeat at the polls. Unfortunately, the right, for all of its claims to support our traditions of freedom, shows little respect for democracy or tolerance for civil disagreement. They have spent so much time using hyperbole to define every issue in draconian terms that they have lost sight of the fact that our freedoms are defined by how we do things more than by what we do.

huntinman
05-28-2010, 02:13 PM
The "event" is not the efforts to convince Sestak to withdraw. The "event" is the scorched earth efforts by the right to cripple whatever they cannot defeat at the polls. Unfortunately, the right, for all of its claims to support our traditions of freedom, shows little respect for democracy or tolerance for civil disagreement. They have spent so much time using hyperbole to define every issue in draconian terms that they have lost sight of the fact that our freedoms are defined by how we do things more than by what we do.

Sounds exactly like the left...hmmm Are you sure your'e not a republican and are descibing the libs?

YardleyLabs
05-28-2010, 02:32 PM
Sounds exactly like the left...hmmm Are you sure your'e not a republican and are descibing the libs?
Actually, I suspect that my comments apply to the wings of both parties. Unfortunately, the Republican party seems to be embracing its extremists while the Dems have pretty much abandoned theirs. Personally, I am happy to see the 30% of the population with the most extreme views left whining about their lack of choices as both parties seek to fight to occupy the middle. However, our primary structure gives undue weight to the passionate feelings of the extremists, leaving the center without a good choice.

Gerry Clinchy
05-28-2010, 05:16 PM
The NY Times reported that Rahm had Slick Willie make the "suggestion" to Sestak. It was to be an unpaid position on some Presidential Advisory committee. They wanted Sestak to run & retain his House seat & let Arlen have the Senate seat.

Rahm should probably thank Sestak for turning down the offer, as I don't think Arlen would have done well against Toomey in the general election. Sestak probably has a better crack at it.

depittydawg
05-28-2010, 05:18 PM
The "event" is not the efforts to convince Sestak to withdraw. The "event" is the scorched earth efforts by the right to cripple whatever they cannot defeat at the polls. Unfortunately, the right, for all of its claims to support our traditions of freedom, shows little respect for democracy or tolerance for civil disagreement. They have spent so much time using hyperbole to define every issue in draconian terms that they have lost sight of the fact that our freedoms are defined by how we do things more than by what we do.

This has been the case in every culture and nation in history including American. The birth of our nation, and the freedoms they enshrined for the world, was a bunch of whacked out lefties who took over their own lives. The righties of the day fought them, to the battlefield, but in the end, the Revolutionists held the day. Every inch of progress in Human Freedom has been opposed by the Right Wingers of its day. Nothing is different today. If you desire to change the status quo, those who hold the power will oppose you with every resource they have at their disposal.

Cody Covey
05-28-2010, 05:26 PM
psssttt...history lesson. Look back through all the civil rights movements and you will find republican's names all over them. You want republicans to reach across the isle? welll apparently we already have since pretty much all we believe today comes from our founders those dirty lefties!

depittydawg
05-28-2010, 05:35 PM
psssttt...history lesson. Look back through all the civil rights movements and you will find republican's names all over them. You want republicans to reach across the isle? welll apparently we already have since pretty much all we believe today comes from our founders those dirty lefties!

Personally I don't equate our current Republican Party with conservatism in the classical sense. Nor do I give the label of "progressive or liberal" to our democratic party.
But beyond that,You've got to be kidding. That hasn't been true since the Civil War era, when the republican party was born as a third party progressive movement. In the twentieth century, and continuing to the present, the Republican party has bitterly fought every piece of civil rights reform the nation has undertaken.

Cody Covey
05-28-2010, 06:07 PM
I think Martin Luther King Jr. and Sr. would disagree considering they were in fact republicans...

depittydawg
05-28-2010, 06:29 PM
I think Martin Luther King Jr. and Sr. would disagree considering they were in fact republicans...

I have no idea what political party MLK belonged to. But I do know, that the Republican party has changed a whole lot in the last 50 years. As has the democratic party.

YardleyLabs
05-28-2010, 06:42 PM
The civil rights movement was supported by a mix of northern republicans and non-southern democrats. The Democratic party remained completely deadlocked on civil rights issues until 1948 when the southern democrats walked out of the Democratic convention to protest a platform that supported civil rights (Hubert Humphey's fame stemmed almost entirely from his role in the convention.).

When civil rights legislation was being passed in the 1960's, it took the leadership of a relatively bigoted President from Texas who believed that his responsibilities as President trumped his personal beliefs. In 1957, Johnson had made major speeches opposing anti-lynching legislation as an unacceptable infringement on state rights. In 1964 and 1965 he did more than any President since Lincoln to make a difference in the legal status of civil rights.

As that was happening, southern democrats were becoming disillusione with the rest of the party, and the Republican party as a whole began to split to oppose the northeastern Republican establishment that had brought us the likes of Rockefeller and Lindsay in New York and Edward Brooks in Massachusetts. Nixon began efforts to reach out to southern Democrats by distancing the party from its civil rights and Reconstruction past. Reagan cemented this new approach which had become known as the Southern Strategy. Since then, the party has generally stood against civil rights legislation and sought retrenchment of many of the initiatives that were supported in the 60's. Interestingly, the biggest Republican moves to re-embrace minorities came from another Texan (sort of), Bush 43. Despite my general dislike of his policies, I tend to think that Bush may have been the most color blind President in our history. His attitude probably contributed directly to creating an environment in which Obama could be elected.

dnf777
05-28-2010, 06:46 PM
His attitude probably contributed directly to creating an environment in which Obama could be elected.

Not nearly as much as his failed policies!

road kill
05-28-2010, 07:49 PM
White House Asked Bill Clinton to Urge Sestak to Drop Out of Senate Race


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/28/white-house-asked-clinton-urge-sestak-drop-senate-race/


So they figure that since blaming Bush is getting old, let's try blaming Clinton :-)


Bill Clinton involved in something this dastardly??

I am SHOCKED!!!:shock:


rk

M&K's Retrievers
05-28-2010, 08:44 PM
Not nearly as much as his failed policies!

Just exactly how much money did you lose while Bush was in office? You still have your practice (for the time being), your family, dogs, lease and Gator. How bad could it be? You sometimes fur up worse than my dogs at feeding time.

dnf777
05-28-2010, 08:49 PM
Just exactly how much money did you lose while Bush was in office? You still have your practice (for the time being), your family, dogs, lease and Gator. How bad could it be? You sometimes fur up worse than my dogs at feeding time.

While I prefer not to broadcast my personal finances over the internet forums (I hope you understand), lets just say I lost the same percentage of my IRA as most all Americans did who were invested in equities.....roughly 40% in the Bush recession. Fortunately, like most others, we've seen our funds recover nicely under Obama's 18 months so far. Not to get too comfortable, as we still face great economic challenges, as last weeks global scare exemplified.

You seem to know a lot about me. Exactly what lease do I have that I am not aware of?

M&K's Retrievers
05-28-2010, 11:22 PM
....

You seem to know a lot about me. Exactly what lease do I have that I am not aware of?

Surely you have a lease. You wouldn't poach. I know you have a place to take Abner hunting. In case you haven't noticed, I just rented the place next door to you so I can complete my unauthorized biography on Liberal Doctors From Texas Who Used to Live in Louisiana Then Served in the Medical Corps and Finally Wound Up In Pennsylvania. Hey! Whats with this fence? ;)