# Should Sestak Squeal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 24, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604 "2010-05-24T18:53:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/1 "2010-05-24T18:53:46Z")
In [this piece](http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0510/Sestak_confirms_WH_job_offer_to_get_out_of_Senate_race.html?showall), Politico reports that Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary winner Joe Sestak confirms that he was offered a job by the White House if he would drop out of the race, clearing the way (presumably) for long-time Senator Arlen Spector’s win. > [@](#): > > Sestak acknowledged in an interview in February that he was offered a position by an unnamed White House official - a potential violation of federal law - but has not offered any specifics on conversation. Republicans are trying to use the issue against Sestak in the November Senate race. > > “It’s interesting. I was asked a question about something that happened months earlier, and I felt that I should answer it honestly, and that’s all I had to say about it.” Sestak said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Anybody else has to decide on what they will say upon their role. That’s their responsibility.” > > Yet Sestak confirmed to NBC’s David Gregory that the incident did take place. > > “I was offered a job, and I answered that,” Sestak said. “Anything that goes beyond that is for others to talk about.” I don’t know what federal law they’re talking about, but putting aside the legal issue for the moment, should Sestak provide more detail, or is it appropriate for him to limit his statements as he has thus far? Republicans, of course, feel strongly that he should 'fess up, but something tells me they’re not exactly neutral observers speaking out for the good of the country when they say that. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/2 "2010-05-24T18:56:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t know what federal law they’re talking about, but putting aside the legal issue for the moment Now THERE’s a novelty. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/3 "2010-05-24T19:23:11Z")
I find there’s something odd about the whole story. It seems to be a frequent rumor that Sestak may have been offered (however indirectly) the job of Secretary of the Navy. However, Obama had his pick for Secretary of the Navy confirmed in June 2009. It doesn’t quite make sense to me that Sestak would be promised a job that was filled by a White House pick just months prior to the alleged promise. If I had to make a wild-assed guess about what happened, it could be that someone at the White House made a vague offer of Sestak continuing to be a friend of the White House, and Sestak took it as a hard offer; and thus there was born an embarrassing misunderstanding. Sestak can’t back down from his statement, and the White House doesn’t want to call Sestak a fibber/guy who can’t follow a conversation. Setting any legal issues aside, I’m not sure that there is any ethical obligation for Sestak to provide more information. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/4 "2010-05-24T19:23:25Z")
I don’t think that Sestak has an obligation to say any more than he has. Nor should he. However, I do think the administration should answer inquiries fully. I was watching the talk shows yestgerday and there seems it seems to be an open question as to whether or not any law might have been broken. “Interfering with an election”, or something like that maybe? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/5 "2010-05-24T19:26:30Z")
I don’t think Sestak has any obligation to say more absent a hearing and subpoena requiring him to discuss it. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/6 "2010-05-24T19:27:00Z")
FWIW, I looked up the Federal bribery statute, and in general, it tends to involve some sort of payment in exchange for an “official act.” My uninformed opinion is that if Sestak had been promised an appointment in exchange for a vote on some issue, there might be a problem. But I wouldn’t call “deciding not to run for office” an official act of a congressman. I don’t think a “political act” is the same as an “official act.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/7 "2010-05-24T19:30:09Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > FWIW, I looked up the Federal bribery statute, and in general, it tends to involve some sort of payment in exchange for an “official act.” > > My uninformed opinion is that if Sestak had been promised an appointment in exchange for a vote on some issue, there might be a problem. But I wouldn’t call “deciding not to run for office” an official act of a congressman. I don’t think a “political act” is the same as an “official act.” I agree. And so far as I can determine, there is no law that would forbid offering an appointed job to a person with the intent of removing him as a candidate for an elected position. That’s called “strategy.” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/8 "2010-05-24T19:36:47Z")
If any relevant federal law enforcement body wants to issue a subpoena, let them have at it. Until then, there’s nothing for either Sestak or the White house to answer or, nor any evidence of any violation of federal law. There’s no law against offering somebody a job. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/9 "2010-05-24T19:39:46Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > FWIW, I looked up the Federal bribery statute, and in general, it tends to involve some sort of payment in exchange for an “official act.” > > My uninformed opinion is that if Sestak had been promised an appointment in exchange for a vote on some issue, there might be a problem. But I wouldn’t call “deciding not to run for office” an official act of a congressman. I don’t think a “political act” is the same as an “official act.” It does seem sort of odd for it to be illegal. President Obama has appointed a number of qualified Republicans to offices with an obvious political goal of getting rid of elected Republicans. This doesn’t seem any more nefarious. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/10 "2010-05-24T19:42:23Z")
If there were any real or even potential infraction here, I have no doubt whatsoever that the OP would cite chapter and verse. This is just rabble rousing, and a lame attempt at that. ---
**Author:** ![sevenwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@sevenwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sevenwood)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/11 "2010-05-24T19:54:24Z")
I guess I should start out by noting that I voted for Sestak. I think his original revelation that he was offered a position if he declined to run was a dumb move on his part - whether or not it was true. (I happen to believe it was true, but it was still a dumb move.) Now he’s given the Republicans a legitimate issue to beat him over the head with during the upcoming campaign. “He’s protecting illegal/immoral tactics by the administration!” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/12 "2010-05-24T20:00:06Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If any relevant federal law enforcement body wants to issue a subpoena, let them have at it. Until then, there’s nothing for either Sestak or the White house to answer or, nor any evidence of any violation of federal law. There’s no law against offering somebody a job. Do you sit around in front of a mirror and _practice_ these absolute statements? So far as I can tell, THIS job offer is perfectly legal. But there well might be a job offer that was illegal. As noted by **Ravenman** a job offer contingent on a particular vote might be illegal, for instance. THIS job offer appears to me to be legal. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/13 "2010-05-24T20:03:47Z")
This is a non-issue. Even George Will agrees. Political parties have the right to sort themselves out. Divvying up positions is a part of that. > [@Bricker](#): > > Do you sit around in front of a mirror and _practice_ these absolute statements? No need; he gets plenty of practice around here. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/14 "2010-05-24T20:04:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you sit around in front of a mirror and _practice_ these absolute statements? > > So far as I can tell, THIS job offer is perfectly legal. But there well might be a job offer that was illegal. As noted by **Ravenman** a job offer contingent on a particular vote might be illegal, for instance. > > THIS job offer appears to me to be legal. There well _might_ have been a gorilla involved. There _might_ have been talk of sending nuclear weapons to bomb Granada. There _might_ have been a group of clowns dressed as nuns selling drugs to children dressed as ninjas. I saw _How To Get Ahead In Advertising_; I know that trick. Do you have any evidence, testimony, statements, or anything at all to indicate that there was another job offer? Or are you pulling this _might have been_ shit out of your ass? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/15 "2010-05-24T21:23:04Z")
There’s a law (18 USC 595) that makes it illegal for someone who has a government position to use their official position to affect the nomination or election of a candidate, and another (18 USC 600) that makes it illegal to promise somebody a job in exchange for them supporting or opposing a candidate. So, saying, “If you withdraw from the race, I’ll make sure you get appointed to X” could be illegal under those statutes. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/16 "2010-05-24T21:32:46Z")
No, it’s not illegal. It’s done all the time. Dick Cheney once personally called Tim Pawlenty and asked him not to run as the Republican candidate against Paul Wellstone because the Whitehouse wanted Norm Coleman to run instaead. Was that not using an official position to affect an election? In return for playing along, Pawlenty got lots of support when he ran for Jesse Ventura’s vacated Governorship a couple of years later. Besides, a nomination is not an election. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/17 "2010-05-24T21:33:57Z")
Incidentally, I don’t believe Sestak has said the Whitehouse asked him for anything in return. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/18 "2010-05-24T21:37:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And so far as I can determine, there is no law that would forbid offering an appointed job to a person with the intent of removing him as a candidate for an elected position. That’s called “strategy.” I think it might be different if you promise someone an official job in exchange for him agreeing not to run (or anything else). That’s called “bribery”. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/19 "2010-05-24T21:45:16Z")
Show us the federal statute that qualifies that as “bribery.” Also, cite that the Whitehouse asked Sestak for anything in return? ---
**Author:** ![Dante\_Fevah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Dante\_Fevah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dante_Fevah)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/20 "2010-05-24T22:04:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In [this piece](http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0510/Sestak_confirms_WH_job_offer_to_get_out_of_Senate_race.html?showall), Politico reports that Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary winner Joe Sestak confirms that he was offered a job by the White House if he would drop out of the race, clearing the way (presumably) for long-time Senator Arlen Spector’s win. > > I don’t know what federal law they’re talking about, but putting aside the legal issue for the moment, should Sestak provide more detail, or is it appropriate for him to limit his statements as he has thus far? > > Republicans, of course, feel strongly that he should 'fess up, but something tells me they’re not exactly neutral observers speaking out for the good of the country when they say that. A potential violation? hahaha People running for office are always offered jobs. It’s not a crime. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=2)