# 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:** 11
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/201 "2010-05-31T02:52:57Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > The Daily Caller (no doubt a fountain of incisive journalism) ran [this story](http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/29/sestak-couldnt-have-taken-reported-intel-post-he-says-white-house-offered-through-clinton/) (originally under the headline “Clinton Blows Job Offer”) noting that Sestak was ineligible for the job/position he was said to have been offered. Suggests to me that maybe he was offered more than that. In fact the WH memo itself refers to “options” that were discussed. Must be that Clinton had a laundry list of goodies to offer… or else he had to go back to the WH to get more instructions. ---
**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 31, 2010, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/202 "2010-05-31T03:44:49Z")
Or maybe it’s just nothing like everybody says. The big, salient fact remains that it wouldn’t have been illegal even if there’d been a job offer, so there’s no reason for anybody to lie about it. Let’s also not forget who has the burden of proof here. Obviously, it would be impossible for the President to ever satisfactorily prove his innocence to the righties, but fortunately, he doesn’t have to. Unless one of you has some proof that he did something illegal, this story is over. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/203 "2010-05-31T15:29:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The big, salient fact remains that it wouldn’t have been illegal even if there’d been a job offer, so there’s no reason for anybody to lie about it. Nor presumably for Sestak, or the White House, or Obama to be anything other than open and forthright in discussing it. Yet they weren’t. Why? ---
**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 31, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/204 "2010-05-31T15:41:21Z")
They were. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/205 "2010-05-31T16:40:08Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Or maybe it’s just nothing like everybody says. > > The big, salient fact remains that it wouldn’t have been illegal even if there’d been a job offer, so there’s no reason for anybody to lie about it. > > Let’s also not forget who has the burden of proof here. Obviously, it would be impossible for the President to ever satisfactorily prove his innocence to the righties, but fortunately, he doesn’t have to. Unless one of you has some proof that he did something illegal, this story is over. The offer of any position would have been illegal. None of this matters from a legal standpoint. The Republicans would be fools to try to impeach Obama for this and they know it. The point is the scandal itself and public perception. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/206 "2010-05-31T16:46:58Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > They were. In your view they were forthright? They freely & fully answered questions when asked? They never temporized or declined to comment? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/207 "2010-05-31T16:55:45Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > The offer of any position would have been illegal… Really? At what point on the spectrum does this illegality come into play? Is it illegal to offer a job to someone who has been _elected_ to an office? When they are _nominated_ by a political party? When they have _announced_ their candidacy? When they have suggested that they might be a candidate? When their names have been bandied about by interested persons? At some point, an ordinary citizen ceases to be a legitimate subject for a job offer and becomes an illegal subject for such an offer. Perhaps you will advise us as to when, exactly, this point occurs? ---
**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 31, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/208 "2010-05-31T17:58:25Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > The offer of any position would have been illegal. No it wouldn’t. Sorry, but it wouldn’t be, just like it wasn’t illegal when Ronald Reagan did it. Try not to get all your information from Sean Hannity. ---
**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 31, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/209 "2010-05-31T17:59:28Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > In your view they were forthright? They freely & fully answered questions when asked? They never temporized or declined to comment? Correct. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/210 "2010-05-31T19:05:33Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No it wouldn’t. Sorry, but it wouldn’t be, just like it wasn’t illegal when Ronald Reagan did it. > > Try not to get all your information from Sean Hannity. I get my information from 18 USC section 600. I’ve noticed how rigid your denials are when anyone or anything on the left is accused of wrongdoing. Your postings were almost identical in the ACORN thread. You attempt to parse words, deny facts that are presented, and repeat this process over and over in an attempt to get the last word. ---
**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 31, 2010, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/211 "2010-05-31T19:15:37Z")
The statute does not support your delusion. Not running for office is not a political act, and never has been. If it was, then it would be illegal for any President ever to offer any elected official a job. I don’t know what you think I was wrong about in the ACORN threads, but whatever it was, I was right. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/212 "2010-05-31T19:39:11Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I get my information from 18 USC section 600. I’ve noticed how rigid your denials are when anyone or anything on the left is accused of wrongdoing. Your postings were almost identical in the ACORN thread. You attempt to parse words, deny facts that are presented, and repeat this process over and over in an attempt to get the last word. How did that ACORN thing work out for you righties? About as well as Heckuva Job Brownie if I recall. The thing is that the actual facts have to be uncovered, as the ACORN episode so brilliantly illustrates. Now I still think that it is the opposition’s job to call these things to the authorities, but the facts need to be uncovered and applied to the statute as interpreted by the caselaw. It is entirely possible that the law was violated, but I’m going to presume innocence until such a time as a jury comes in otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/213 "2010-05-31T19:51:49Z")
No statute, under any circumstances, is ever interpreted by coleslaw! Another liberal socialist effort at disinformation, this time involving cabbage! ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/214 "2010-05-31T21:02:23Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > How did that ACORN thing work out for you righties? About as well as Heckuva Job Brownie if I recall. Pretty well, actually. ACORN funding was cut and ACORN closed its doors due to the scandal. No thanks to the democrats who refused to investigate ACORN. Luckily, public opinion did the trick. The same may take place due to the Sestak scandal. > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > The thing is that the actual facts have to be uncovered, as the ACORN episode so brilliantly illustrates. > > Now I still think that it is the opposition’s job to call these things to the authorities, but the facts need to be uncovered and applied to the statute as interpreted by the caselaw. It is entirely possible that the law was violated, but I’m going to presume innocence until such a time as a jury comes in otherwise. I eagerly await Justice to appoint a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/215 "2010-05-31T21:20:48Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Pretty well, actually. ACORN funding was cut and ACORN closed its doors due to the scandal. No thanks to the democrats who refused to investigate ACORN. Luckily, public opinion did the trick… You have much to be proud of there. Your allies, ignorance and slander, have served you well. You have boldly faced the wrath of the poor and powerless, and have triumphed! > [@](#): > > …I eagerly await Justice to appoint a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this. I have heard tell that holding one’s breath greatly enhances the pleasure of anticipation. ---
**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 31, 2010, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/216 "2010-05-31T21:40:20Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Pretty well, actually. ACORN funding was cut and ACORN closed its doors due to the scandal. What scandal? There wasn’t any scandal. ACORN was shut down due to loss of funding from an unconstitutional act of Congress. It wasn’t guilty of any wrongdoing. The “pimp” videos turned out to be fake. Keep up. > [@](#): > > I eagerly await Justice to appoint a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this. Bottom of what? Nothing illegal has been alleged. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/217 "2010-05-31T22:09:02Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I eagerly await Justice to appoint a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this. Has it not occurred to you that we may already be at the bottom of it? ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/218 "2010-05-31T22:43:57Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Correct. So you must necessarily find these statements from this [Washington Post column](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/how-the-sestak-job-offer-becam.html) to be false: > [@](#): > > White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was repeatedly asked in the intervening months about Sestak’s allegation but deflected comment. As the story became a bigger deal in the wake of Sestak’s primary victory, the statements out of the White House grew more and more opaque – as Gibbs insisted over the weekend that “nothing inappropriate happened” but refusing to engage in the more basic “what happened question.” > [@](#): > > The matter reached a head during President Obama’s press conference yesterday when, asked by Fox News Channel’s Major Garrett about the details of the Sestak job offer, the President said only: “I can assure the public that nothing improper took place. But as I said, there will be a response shortly on that issue.” Why, pray, has the Washington Post taken to offering fake Presidential quotes? Why is no one calling them on it? ---
**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 31, 2010, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/219 "2010-05-31T23:00:07Z")
The salient information was that nothing improper took place. He answered that question promptly, and that’s all the public was entitled to know. Even if Sestak had been offered a job, that’s still NOT ILLEGAL, so what crime are trying to insinuate was committed? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2010, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/220 "2010-05-31T23:11:04Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The salient information was that nothing improper took place. He answered that question promptly, and that’s all the public was entitled to know. > > Even if Sestak had been offered a job, that’s still NOT ILLEGAL, so what crime are trying to insinuate was committed? You can say until your blue in the face but it’s illegal to offer a job or position of any kind in return for something. The law involving this was posted multiple times on this thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=12)