# 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:** 12
**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, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/221 "2010-05-31T23:22:48Z")
It’s illegal to ask for an official political act in return. Not running for office is not an official act. No matter how much you jump up and down, it’s not illegal, and every president has done it. Every legal expert has said it’s not illegal. Show me one who says it is. ---
**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 31, 2010, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/222 "2010-05-31T23:57:45Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > 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. And the right-wing nonsense has been debunked even more times, but that doesn’t stop some people from repeating those facile talking points, does it? ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/223 "2010-06-01T01:12:57Z")
> [@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. Note that this position isn’t compatible with your post #209. We now appear to agree that over a fair amount of time Sestak, the White House and Obama had little to say about the matter, even when asked. Eventually, an explanation was given. > [@](#): > > Even if Sestak had been offered a job, that’s still NOT ILLEGAL, so what crime are trying to insinuate was committed? I’m not trying to insinuate anything (except perhaps that your position seems less that fully consistent). I incline toward the view that the offer was legitimate (though not that every job offer necessarily must be). But this raises the question of the Washington Post story I linked above: why did the White House handle this so badly? If you are confident what you’ve done is above board and are committed to openness and transparency, why not respond to questions with a prompt, honest, complete answer? Why do you think the White House handled this so clumsily? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/224 "2010-06-01T01:38:33Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > And the right-wing nonsense has been debunked even more times, but that doesn’t stop some people from repeating those facile talking points, does it? The law clearly states you can’t offer someone a job or position in return for something. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2010, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/225 "2010-06-01T01:47:42Z")
No job was offered, nor was anything asked for in return. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2010, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/226 "2010-06-01T01:53:41Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The law clearly states you can’t offer someone a job or position in return for something. You can’t even address the substance of what multiple people - left, right, and center - have already agreed what the laws mean. You have failed to correlate the facts with the law. Just like I called you out for making lazy arguments two pages ago, you have failed to provide any more substance to your argument since then. Your arguments continue to be a waste of perfectly good electrons, since you have yet to back them up with anything but repetition. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/227 "2010-06-01T01:58:15Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You can’t even address the substance of what multiple people - left, right, and center - have already agreed what the laws mean. > > You have failed to correlate the facts with the law. Just like I called you out for making lazy arguments two pages ago, you have failed to provide any more substance to your argument since then. Your arguments continue to be a waste of perfectly good electrons, since you have yet to back them up with anything but repetition. It could not be any clearly written. 18 U.S.C. § 600 : US Code - Section 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity 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. Sestak was asked to withdraw from the race in return for a position within the government per his admission. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2010, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/228 "2010-06-01T02:25:19Z")
Sestak had not yet even entered the race, and withdrawing from a primary is not a political act in any case. Every legal expert, Democrat and Republican, has said this is not illegal. Why do you think you understand the law better than they do? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/229 "2010-06-01T02:27:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > a primary is not a political act in any case. That is fucking retarded. A primary is governed by election laws. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2010, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/230 "2010-06-01T02:32:51Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > That is fucking retarded. A primary is governed by election laws. You truncated my quote. I said _withdrawing_ from a Primary is not a political act. That’s not what those words mean in the statute. They refer to actually trading some kind of elected power for favors. Not running for something is not a use of political power. You’re wrong. And besides that, Sestak wasn’t even IN the Primary yet. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/231 "2010-06-01T02:34:23Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You truncated my quote. I said _withdrawing_ from a Primary is not a political act. That’s not what those words mean in the statute. They refer to actually trading some kind of elected power for favors. > > Not running for something is not a use of political power. You’re wrong.. A position was offered in return for something. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2010, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/232 "2010-06-01T02:39:45Z")
Nothing of value was offered, and no political act was requested in return. Charges of bribery are unsatisfied by the facts on both ends. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/233 "2010-06-01T02:50:00Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Nothing of value was offered in your opinion. The White House went so far as to use a former President to make the offer. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > and no political act was requested in return. withdrawing from 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:** [June 1, 2010, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/234 "2010-06-01T03:21:18Z")
He was not a candidate for any election, and withdrawing is not a political act in any case. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/235 "2010-06-01T05:34:05Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > He was not a candidate for any election, and withdrawing is not a political act in any case. He was offered something in return for something. The something was his running in an election. Saying he wasn’t a candidate would mean he didn’t win the primary election which he did. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/236 "2010-06-01T06:01:28Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > He was offered something in return for something. The something was his running in an election. Saying he wasn’t a candidate would mean he didn’t win the primary election which he did. Are you actually unable to understand something so plain? He wasn’t a candidate at the time. And even if he was, not running isn’t performing an official act. And even if it was he wasn’t offered anything worth any money. It’s pathetic how the right really _needs_ this to be bad. Well, more funny than pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/237 "2010-06-01T06:16:21Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > He was offered something in return for something. The something was his running in an election. Saying he wasn’t a candidate would mean he didn’t win the primary election which he did. So are you saying **Bricker** , a practicing (I believe) attorney with political ideas similar to yours, is mistaken on this point of law? (Hrm, now that I look back on your previous posts, it looks like you do. In this case, why do you think his interpretation is incorrect? Are there any lawyers or legal experts out there who support your interpretation so we can take a a look?) ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/238 "2010-06-01T13:34:43Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Are you actually unable to understand something so plain? > > He wasn’t a candidate at the time. And even if he was, not running isn’t performing an official act. And even if it was he wasn’t offered anything worth any money. > > It’s pathetic how the right really _needs_ this to be bad. Well, more funny than pathetic. He was asked not to run (which he declined). Clearly he intended to run. To say what he was offered had no value defies the logic of sending a former President of the United States to make the offer. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/239 "2010-06-01T13:55:28Z")
This thread’s still going? Sheesh. There’s no stopping the power of wingnut hysteria. Don’t forget, Obama’s going to take away your guns, and reinstate the Fairness Doctrine to drive Rush Limbaugh off the air and shut down Fox News. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2010, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/240 "2010-06-01T15:31:35Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > He was asked not to run (which he declined). Clearly he intended to run. To say what he was offered had no value defies the logic of sending a former President of the United States to make the offer. He was offered a non-paying position which he was not eligible for. And, for like a fifteen hundredth time, the law requires “political activity” in exchange for something of value. Political activity, as we all know from the Hatch Act which prohibits Federal employees from engaging in political activity, includes things like raising money, endorsing candidates, electioneering, or running for office yourself. NOT running for office cannot logically be considered political activity. In that case, nobody could ever accept Federal appointment, especially so for sitting members of Congress. If NOT running for office was political activity, then the appointments of Hillary Clinton, Ray LaHood, Ken Salazar, Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, John Ashcroft, Tommy Thompson, Norm Mineta, Tom Ridge, and many, many, many other cabinet officials who were plucked from elective office over the years were illegal. That’s bullshit. The law does not mean that all those officials, and the presidents who appointed them, are criminals. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=13)