# 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:** 4
**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, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/61 "2010-05-25T17:40:42Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > 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. Well, technically, of course, anything that Congress chooses to impeach for is an impeachable offense. But from a practical standpoint… no. Not even if the GOP were in the majority. Practically speaking, it requires conduct that is understood to be criminal. Such garbage… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/62 "2010-05-25T17:51:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, technically, of course, anything that Congress chooses to impeach for is an impeachable offense. But from a practical standpoint… no. Not even if the GOP were in the majority. Practically speaking, it requires conduct that is understood to be criminal. > > Such garbage… The idea originated from Dick Morris on Hannity (according to the MediaMatters link). Not exactly a font of wisdom expected from any conversation between those two. ---
**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 25, 2010, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/63 "2010-05-25T17:54:20Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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_. Or, it could have been a conversation like, “Why are you running against a 30-year sitting senator who is a known moderate? If you just hold on to your seat, we like having you in Congress, get a little more experience on the political front, you could have a future in the Executive Branch. We just appointed a Secretary of the Navy a couple months ago, but you’d be a good candidate next time that job is available, Admiral Sestak.” I don’t think any part of such a conversation would be illegal or inadvisable. What, the White House can’t give career advice to a politician? ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/64 "2010-05-25T17:56:40Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There’s no law against offering somebody a job. False. I know several people who offered temp employment to young women and found out it was against the law. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/65 "2010-05-25T18:18:52Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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. Have you listened to Sestak speak? He is NOT a born politician. He has trouble saying anything that isn’t canned. They were asking him questions on CSPAN (which mioght have been airing some other show) and he didn’t do a very credible job it wasn’t Katy Couric/Sarah Palin bad but it wasn’t good. ---
**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, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/66 "2010-05-25T18:29:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote: > 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. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > May I be the first to say, “cite?” Every thread on this site involving Bush is a cite 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/67 "2010-05-26T00:25:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The idea originated from Dick Morris on Hannity (according to the MediaMatters link). Not exactly a font of wisdom expected from any conversation between those two. My theory is that Clinton tried to put the moves on Dick Morris’ wife. I can’t think of any other explanation for the man’s inccesant, irrational hatred of the Dems. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/68 "2010-05-26T01:02:34Z")
Please. Did Clinton go after the wives of every Republican member of Congress and every talking head on Fox News too? And the husbands of the women? Have you ever considered the possibility that Morris, and all the others, have been putting on acts for the sake of self-promotion? Getting their mugs on TV? Brand management? ---
**Author:** ![Carmady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f04885/32.png) [@Carmady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carmady)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/69 "2010-05-26T01:16:42Z")
Clearly bribery. The White House offered him a job, but they were only willing to give it to him if he accepted it. There has to be some kind of law against bribing someone with a job offer to accept the job offer. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/70 "2010-05-26T03:41:20Z")
> [@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. Are you kidding?! During the Bush years, something like this would have been down in the white noise, barely noticeable by friend and foe alike. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/71 "2010-05-26T12:48:09Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Are you kidding?! During the Bush years, something like this would have been down in the white noise, barely noticeable by friend and foe alike. Are YOU kidding? At least prior to Reeder’s muzzling, I think we could have counted on a word or two from him. In any event, we seem to have resolved the legal issue, and to no one’s surprise, the consensus here, as everywhere else, is that there’s no violation of law. The other question I posed was: does Sestak have some sort of moral, ethical, or practical reason to reveal additional detail? And expanding that original question – does the administration? Given the election-time dialogue about transparency, for example, is the administration somehow obligated to reveal the details of any offer it made? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/72 "2010-05-26T18:46:33Z")
[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/exclusive-senate-judiciary-committee-republicans-atorney-general-eric-holder-special-prosecutor-sestak-job-offer.html](http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/exclusive-senate-judiciary-committee-republicans-atorney-general-eric-holder-special-prosecutor-sestak-job-offer.html) And this just in… **All 7 Republicans on Senate Judiciary Committee Ask AG Holder to Appoint Special Prosecutor to Look Into Alleged Sestak Job Offer** Steve Benen at _Washington Monthly_ says it for me… > **[Home](https://washingtonmonthly.com/)** > > Sign up for the Washington Monthly newsletter and receive our best policy analysis in your inbox every weekday. > [@](#): > > …And just as an aside, the seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee really ought to be ashamed of themselves. These same senators saw the Plame scandal, Scooter Libby and his get-out-of-jail-free card, the warrantless-wiretap scandal, the torture memos, the purge of U.S. Attorneys for political reasons, the no-bid Halliburton contracts, the cost estimates of Medicare Part D deliberately hidden from Congress, Interior Department officials literally in bed with oil company officials, the pundits paid to toe the administration’s line in the media without disclosure, the probably illegal fake-news segments the administration created to run on local news outlets without disclosure, the misuse of “faith-based” grants to help Republican congressional candidates, Karl Rove’s campaign “briefings” to federal offices in violation of the Hatch Act, and plenty more alleged crimes committed by the Bush/Cheney gang that I’m probably forgetting. > > The seven GOP senators on the Judiciary Committee not only saw no need for a special prosecutor in any of these scandals, but they didn’t even want to hold hearings on the controversies. > > And now they literally want to make a federal case out of Sestak’s dubious claim? It’s genuinely pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/73 "2010-05-26T18:58:55Z")
Hmmm. Well, I agree it’s pathetic. I don’t think Sestak’s claim is all that dubious, but I think the inference that there’s a crime here is beyond dubious – it’s downright absurd. ---
**Author:** ![chorpler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chorpler/32/2888_2.png) [@chorpler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chorpler)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/74 "2010-05-27T02:02:27Z")
Sorry for the hijack here, but this part of **elucidator** ’s quote from Steve Benen’s post on [washingtonmonthly.com](http://washingtonmonthly.com) grabbed my attention: > [@](#): > > These same senators saw … Interior Department officials literally in bed with oil company officials … Whoa! What on earth is he referring to there? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/75 "2010-05-27T02:36:57Z")
You may have heard reference to a “too cozy relationship” between government inspectors and energy companies. That was euphemism, and thunderous understatement. World War Two was noisy. Space is big. Business friendly environment. Yes. Friendly. ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/76 "2010-05-27T12:34:33Z")
> [@chorpler](#): > > Whoa! What on earth is he referring to there? In 2008, the Minerals Management Service (an agency under the Interior Department that collects oil and gas royalties) was investigated by the Interior Department’s IG. The report released in September 2008 ([NYT article](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html)) documents some substantial ethics violations, in particular the acceptance of gifts from energy companies. However, the money quote from the article is this: > [@](#): > > The investigation also concluded that several of the officials “frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives.” So, surprisingly, this is one of the few times where “literally” literally means “literally.” > [@elucidator](#): > > You may have heard reference to a “too cozy relationship” between government inspectors and energy companies. That was euphemism, and thunderous understatement. World War Two was noisy. Space is big. Business friendly environment. Yes. Friendly. A simple “I don’t know” would have sufficed. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/77 "2010-05-27T13:18:38Z")
Maybe I’m just naive, but I guess I’d always assumed this sort of thing happened all the time. It seems to me that it’s pretty much the definition of the word “politics”. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/78 "2010-05-27T15:49:12Z")
According to Axelrod it would be a serious crime if true: [from the Philly Post](http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2010/05/27/obama-keeps-mum-on-alleged-sestak-job-offer/): \*\*One Meet The Press, David Gregory asked senior White House advisor David Axelrod about the offer and Axelrod distanced himself from blame saying, “I have spoken with the people who looked into this, and they tell me nothing inappropriate happened.” In other words: “Keep me out of this mess.” Later on CNN, Axelrod admitted that, “If such things happened, they would constitute a serious breach of the law.” If there was an easy way out from under this story for Sestak and the White House, they would have taken it by now. It seems obvious that the “real story” is at the very least embarrassing, and at worst criminal. One thing is clear — the story is not going away. And it would seem that there are only two outcomes for the Democrats and neither is good. Either someone in the White House made an inappropriate and possibly illegal offer to Sestak; or the Congressman exaggerated or outright lied. In other words, either the White House takes a hit or the Sestak campaign takes a hit. \*\* ---
**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 27, 2010, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/79 "2010-05-27T16:05:13Z")
A right wing columnist cherry picking a quote without context does not impress me. If Axelrod thinks that offering Sestak a job was illegal, he’s wrong, so I don’t know what he means by “such things,” nor what he means by saying it didn’t happen. There’s nothing here. Go ahead and get your hopes up, though. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/80 "2010-05-27T16:48:06Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > A right wing columnist cherry picking a quote without context does not impress me. > > If Axelrod thinks that offering Sestak a job was illegal, he’s wrong, so I don’t know what he means by “such things,” nor what he means by saying it didn’t happen. > > There’s nothing here. Go ahead and get your hopes up, though. All I did was post a quote but who better than you to correct the President’s Senior Advisor. You should send him an email pointing out the error. Might be a job in it for you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=5)