# 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:** 3
**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, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/41 "2010-05-25T01:10:55Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > 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. I doubt that, actually. Bush and Cheney did intervene in a Primary in my state (as I mentioned above), and nobody accused them of any wrongdoing. ---
**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, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/42 "2010-05-25T01:19:59Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. May I be the first to say, “cite?” ---
**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, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/43 "2010-05-25T01:23:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “…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. I don’t agree with your interpretation there. If a sitting Senator or Representative is appointed to an executive post, then obviously an election would have to be called, but I think there’s a difference between requiring an election to be called and influencing an already existing election. And I’m not sure there’s a Constitutional Article II limitation here. It comes down to a question of intent, as I see it. The President is free to offer a candidate an executive position. He’s not free to offer a candidate an executive position with the intent of taking him out of the race. To take an absurd example, the President is, constitutionally, the commander of chief of the armed forces, but it would probably be a violation of the law for him to activate a candidate who was a member of the Army Reserve to get him out of the race. He couldn’t say, “Hey, candidate, you’re now on active duty, get to Iraq.” ---
**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, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/44 "2010-05-25T01:27:24Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. A primary isn’t an election, but the law doesn’t just prohibit interference in elections, but interference in nominations. And whether it’s illegal to offer somebody a job to drop out of an election is the subject of debate. And I know there’s no proof that they asked Sestak to do so. We’re discussing a hypothetical here…whether any laws were broken if the allegation is true. ---
**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 25, 2010, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/45 "2010-05-25T02:08:40Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > 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. Offering a job to somebody and saying ‘if your other prospects do not pan out’ is not illegal. A quid pro quo has not been, and will not be, established. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/46 "2010-05-25T02:20:29Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > A Primary is not an election. Debatable. > [@](#): > > It’s also not illegal to offer somebody a job to drop out of an election (much less a Primary). Correct, because the President has an Article II power to offer jobs and his acceptance would have naturally meant wthdrawing. > [@](#): > > There’s also no proof that they asked Sestak to do so. True. But there is evidence that it happened - Sestak’s own word. ---
**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, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/47 "2010-05-25T02:27:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Debatable. > > Correct, because the President has an Article II power to offer jobs and his acceptance would have naturally meant wthdrawing. > > True. But there is evidence that it happened - Sestak’s own word. [Sestak](http://www.stephaniemiller.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/sestak.jpg) [Slestak](http://api.ning.com/files/P6-5xpzt0bex-Y*xZfl-2fVMtjSYCn9A7FWaMlChiXIcyW*XOgqt*12vzYrVxtborZit2vsHQIHZLNDX61m0kKzn1HKGPpQ*/2586564786_46304e329f.jpg) [Sleestak](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lBUrmut81Vk/R5tNQjo0nGI/AAAAAAAAALM/Vo3iZPcoLTQ/s400/sleestak.jpg) On preview: Awwww you had to go and fix the typo, didn’t you **Bricker**? :mad: 😉😃 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/48 "2010-05-25T02:59:13Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Now THERE’s a novelty. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > 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. If you feel the need to attack Bricker, feel free to open a BBQ Pit thread. Drive-by insults are neither pertinent nor welcome. Knock it off. [/Modding] ---
**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, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/49 "2010-05-25T03:06:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Debatable. How so? The winner of a Primary has not won any elected office. How is it an election, and how is it the federal government’s business how individual political parties choose their nominees? If I start my own party, consisting of only my wife and I, and I offer to load the dishwasher every night for a month if she agrees to withdraw from our primary, amd I guilty of a federal crime? > [@](#): > > True. But there is evidence that it happened - Sestak’s own word. I don’t believe that Sestak has said the Whitehouse asked him for a quid pro quo, but I am willing to be corrected. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/50 "2010-05-25T03:11:00Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > [Sestak](http://www.stephaniemiller.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/sestak.jpg) > > [Slestak](http://api.ning.com/files/P6-5xpzt0bex-Y*xZfl-2fVMtjSYCn9A7FWaMlChiXIcyW*XOgqt*12vzYrVxtborZit2vsHQIHZLNDX61m0kKzn1HKGPpQ*/2586564786_46304e329f.jpg) > > [Sleestak](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lBUrmut81Vk/R5tNQjo0nGI/AAAAAAAAALM/Vo3iZPcoLTQ/s400/sleestak.jpg) > On preview: Awwww you had to go and fix the typo, didn’t you **Bricker**? :mad: 😉😃 Geez, you forgot me. [Slee](http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/v230/1060/110/n1834684259_8997.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/51 "2010-05-25T03:14:36Z")
But wouldn’t it be just as easy to offer the _quid_ without any reference to any particular _quo_ at all? If he’s offered a high-profile WH job, nobody has to say anything about his getting out of the race, he would have to anyway if he takes the bai…offer. ---
**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, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/52 "2010-05-25T03:21:38Z")
Exactly. Obama’s not a moron. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/53 "2010-05-25T05:00:08Z")
> [@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: it’s a job offer. Sestak was vying for one job, and was possibly offered another, which he turned down. We should all be so fortunate, and I thought the Repubs favored the fortunate. I’m so confused… ---
**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, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/54 "2010-05-25T07:14:53Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Geez, you forgot me. > > [Slee](http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/v230/1060/110/n1834684259_8997.jpg) Sorry; it wasn’t personal. I mean, I hope you’re not offended, but I thought my last picture was a kind of visual punchline, and I just didn’t think that your appearance would be sufficiently jarring. Maybe next time, eh? ---
**Author:** ![YamatoTwinkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/cc9497/32.png) [@YamatoTwinkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YamatoTwinkie)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/55 "2010-05-25T14:54:55Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > But wouldn’t it be just as easy to offer the _quid_ without any reference to any particular _quo_ at all? Exactly. Sestak wasn’t offered a job \*in exchange \*for him dropping out of the race. He was offered a job, period. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/56 "2010-05-25T15:05:05Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > If you feel the need to attack Bricker, feel free to open a BBQ Pit thread. Drive-by insults are neither pertinent nor welcome. Nor was that one. It was addressing the lack of content and debate value in the OP post _itself,_ something a mod should appropriately address directly. If you feel the need to attack me, feel free to open a BBQ Pit thread. Drive-by modding is neither pertinent nor welcome. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/57 "2010-05-25T17:01:11Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Nor was that one. It was addressing the lack of content and debate value in the OP post _itself,_ something a mod should appropriately address directly. > > If you feel the need to attack me, feel free to open a BBQ Pit thread. Drive-by modding is neither pertinent nor welcome. You are out of line. You have made a persistent habit of attacking other posters with snide comments about their posts while ignoring the actual discussions in various threads. On those occasions when you have contributed nothing to a thread except those snide remarks, I have called you on it. You choose to characterize my attempts to guide you in civility as attacks upon your person. My remarks are not personal attacks. Your remarks are out of line. If you wish to continue interrupting these threads, both with your initial off-topic comments as well as your rationalizations for your behavior, you may jeopardize your posting privileges. [/Moderating] ---
**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 25, 2010, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/58 "2010-05-25T17:05:52Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > But wouldn’t it be just as easy to offer the _quid_ without any reference to any particular _quo_ at all? If he’s offered a high-profile WH job, nobody has to say anything about his getting out of the race, he would have to anyway if he takes the bai…offer. I suggested earlier that there might not have been an attractive enough job available at the time they wanted him to drop out. They weren’t going to fire someone so as to be able to give him a job. So they would have to promise him upfront that they’d give him a/the job down the line if he dropped out now. ---
**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, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/59 "2010-05-25T17:14:24Z")
I doubt that. I find it hard to believe they wouldn’t have a specific job in hand. I also doubt they explicitly mentioned any _quo_. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/60 "2010-05-25T17:27:43Z")
Apparently the crew on Fox & Friends was, without humor or irony, [suggesting that this might be an impeachable offense](http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005250006). If I’d ever experienced the slightest twinge of regret for having frequently suggested that Bush and Cheney should be impeached, those twinges would have just vanished. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=4)