# 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:** 2
**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 24, 2010, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/21 "2010-05-24T22:29:35Z")
> [@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. Offering a government job in exchange for a favor is probably illegal. There is certainly enough information to open a grand jury investigation. There is no reason to believe that Sestak has not cooperated with any investigating authorities. ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/22 "2010-05-24T22:30:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Show us the federal statute that qualifies that as “bribery.” I don’t k now if it’s legally defined as bribery. I’m using the term colloquelly. The federal government is prosecuting people all over the place for depriving their employers of their “honest services”. I find it hard to imagine that offering federal jobs to people in exchange for gain doesn’t fall under some similar statute somewhere, at least. But you never know, hence the “I think” in my post. You might want to look up whatever Blogo was prosecuted for, in trying to sell the senate seat. > [@](#): > > Also, cite that the Whitehouse asked Sestak for anything in return? I have no idea. But I assume that’s the “potential” violation. My point was that if they actually appointed Sestak and he was thus removed from the race, that’s politics. Supposing they had no open plum position at the time but promised him one later in exchange for him pulling out now, that’s different. YMMV. ---
**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, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/23 "2010-05-24T22:31:26Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, it’s not illegal. It’s done all the time. Well, “done all the time” and “illegal” aren’t mutually exclusive things. Here are the text of the two statutes. I’ll let you decide if either the Sestak or Pawlenty incidents were in violation: 18 USC 595 > [@](#): > > Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. > > This section shall not prohibit or make unlawful any act by any officer or employee of any educational or research institution, establishment, agency, or system which is supported in whole or in part by any state or political subdivision thereof, or by the District of Columbia or by any Territory or Possession of the United States; or by any recognized religious, philanthropic or cultural organization. and here’s 18 USC 600 > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/24 "2010-05-24T22:37:20Z")
Wow, the plain language of those statutes make it sound like an official simply stating his support for a candidate is illegal. There must be something limiting the application of those laws. ---
**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, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/25 "2010-05-24T22:44:19Z")
An official stating his support for a candidate isn’t illegal. An official using his official powers to support a candidate is illegal. ---
**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, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/26 "2010-05-24T23:00:06Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > An official stating his support for a candidate isn’t illegal. Not according to the code you cited. Unless “affecting” does not include trying to influence the electorate. ---
**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, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/27 "2010-05-24T23:01:11Z")
For argument’s sake, what was the “use of official authority” (referenced in 18 USC 595) which interfered in the election in this case? Seems to me that this statute is meant to prohibit someone from throwing up administrative roadblocks to someone getting on the ballot. I don’t see anything there that relates to offering a political appointment. On the second bit of law, “political activity” is generally meant to be running for office or raising money for contributions. Seriously, I have a hard time seeing that NOT running for office is also political activity. Furthermore, it doesn’t seem like the White House was trying to get Sestak to endorse Specter, which would clearly fit the definition of “support” for a political candidate. While those parts of law are much closer to the topic at hand than the bribery statute, it seems pretty clear to me that neither one actually applies to the facts of the situation as we know them. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/28 "2010-05-24T23:01:18Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > 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? You’re misreading this. Bricker isn’t suggesting such an offer occurred here. Here’s reacting to the absolute comment that no job offer, any time, anywhere, for any reason, could be illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/29 "2010-05-24T23:02:21Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > For argument’s sake, what was the “use of official authority” (referenced in 18 USC 595) which interfered in the election in this case? Offering a position that only that office has the authority to offer. ---
**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, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/30 "2010-05-24T23:31:18Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > You’re misreading this. Bricker isn’t suggesting such an offer occurred here. Here’s reacting to the absolute comment that no job offer, any time, anywhere, for any reason, could be illegal. Said more politely than I would have, but yes. **Snowboarder** , I was saying that some job offer, to some other person, by some other person, somewhere in the free world, could be made under conditions that would make it illegal. THIS job offer, here, involving Sestak, appears completely legal. I was objecting to **Diogenes** ’ blanket statement. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/31 "2010-05-24T23:38:59Z")
Typical liberal hypocrisy! Let the Bushistas indulge in a bit of whimsical fun, like siccing the Justice Dept on their political enemies, and the liberals just wont shut up about what a Big Hairy Ass Deal it was! But here we have the clear shadow of a hint of a possibility that something rather like an infraction may very well have occurred, and Rahm Emmanuel still has not been skinned and staked out on an anthill. Which is who its gotta be, right? Gotta be Rahm Emmanuel. ---
**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, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/32 "2010-05-24T23:41:29Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Well, “done all the time” and “illegal” aren’t mutually exclusive things. Here are the text of the two statutes. I’ll let you decide if either the Sestak or Pawlenty incidents were in violation: > > 18 USC 595 > > and here’s 18 USC 600 I’m going to say no. “…uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate…” does not seem to reach this conduct. If “interfering or affecting” is read that boradly, then the Presidnet could never appoint a sitting Senator or Representative to any executive post, because such action would “affect” an election by causing a special election, or by changing the incumbency of the next election. Assuming Congress intended that result seems absurd, and, more to the point, it would run afoul of the President’s Art II powers. And icing on the cake: the Constituion expressly contemplates a situation where a Congressman may be offered an executive post by forbidding the holding of both positions. Congress may not limit the President’s exercise of his Art II powers in that way. With respect to 18 USC 600, there is no offer for the purpose of gaining anyone’s support. I suppose, technically, if the President (or his minion) said, “You must drop out of the race AND endorse Specter,” then he would run afoul of this statute. But there’s no hint of evidence to support that scenario. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2010, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/33 "2010-05-24T23:58:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t know what federal law they’re talking about No doubt the same one Obama violated when he nominated Senator Gregg to be Commerce Secretary, in exchange for the obvious quid pro quo of vacating the seat so a Democrat could get a shot at it… oh, wait… ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/34 "2010-05-25T00:04:45Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > For argument’s sake, what was the “use of official authority” (referenced in 18 USC 595) which interfered in the election in this case? Seems to me that this statute is meant to prohibit someone from throwing up administrative roadblocks to someone getting on the ballot. So Republicans going over Libertarian signatures, or Democrats scrutinizing Green ones, with a fine-toothed comb than usual is illegal? Good to know… ---
**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 25, 2010, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/35 "2010-05-25T00:09:54Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > You’re misreading this. Bricker isn’t suggesting such an offer occurred here. Here’s reacting to the absolute comment that no job offer, any time, anywhere, for any reason, could be illegal. > [@Bricker](#): > > Said more politely than I would have, but yes. **Snowboarder** , I was saying that some job offer, to some other person, by some other person, somewhere in the free world, could be made under conditions that would make it illegal. > > THIS job offer, here, involving Sestak, appears completely legal. > > I was objecting to **Diogenes** ’ blanket statement. Ah, ok. I misunderstood, I guess. No blood, no foul. Play on! ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/36 "2010-05-25T00:21:06Z")
Is there a confidentiality issue involved? Are people who were interviewed about a job offer expected not to discuss the interview? Because this would leave somebody like Sestak open to a political attack. Accuse him of having knowledge of an illegal job offer when you know he can’t discuss the issue. Even if nothing illegal occurred, his inability to respond makes it look like he’s covering something up. ---
**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 25, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/37 "2010-05-25T00:28:52Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > An official stating his support for a candidate isn’t illegal. An official using his official powers to support a candidate is illegal. A President can’t endorse a candidate? What official poewers did Obama use to support a candidate anyway? ---
**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 25, 2010, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/38 "2010-05-25T01:01:50Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > A President can’t endorse a candidate? A President, or anybody else, can endorse a candidate. The President can’t use his official powers to help get a candidate elected. If I’m the head of the State Alcohol Control Board, for instance, and you own a restaurant, I can’t say, "If you back candidate X, I’ll make sure you get a liquor license. > [@](#): > > What official poewers did Obama use to support a candidate anyway? The allegation is that the President promised Sestak a a federal position, which is an official power, in exchange for his dropping out of the primary. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/39 "2010-05-25T01:08:41Z")
All I know is that if this allegation were being made against Bush, this thread would already have 223 posts including 121 posts explaining why Bush should be impeached, 32 saying “Oh noes, not President Cheney”, 17 explaining that Cheney is the de facto President anyways and 25 ridiculing Bricker and Shodan. ---
**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 25, 2010, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/40 "2010-05-25T01:09:34Z")
A Primary is not an election. It’s also not illegal to offer somebody a job to drop out of an election (much less a Primary). There’s also no proof that they asked Sestak to do so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=3)