# 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:** 8
**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 28, 2010, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/141 "2010-05-28T17:19:01Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Apparently the WH basis for declaring that it was legal is that it was an unpaid position. Personally, I think it may have been unpaid but it’s hard to see that it’s not something of value. (Otherwise they wouldn’t have been offering it, of course.) You’re grasping at straws. ---
**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 28, 2010, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/142 "2010-05-28T17:28:02Z")
To add two more thought, the WH statement correctly points out that not running for office does not legally qualify as an “official act” anyway, but even more significantly, I like this: > [@](#): > > and Baker adds that the White House counsel looked at the the offer and concluded it wasn’t illegal: > > The office of Robert F. Bauer, the White House counsel, has concluded that Mr. Emanuel’s proposal did not violate laws prohibiting government employees from promising employment as a reward for political activity because the position being offered was unpaid. The office also found other examples of presidents offering positions to political allies to achieve political aims. Just as a reminder, Bush and Cheney argued voiciferously that a President cannot be guilty of illegality if he is relying in good faith on the advice of Whitehouse Counsel. The Republicans now either have to accept that principle in Obama’s case or reject it for Bush. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/143 "2010-05-28T17:34:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, that puts to rest my last point. I think to stay consistent with the claims of transparency, they should have explained this… and they did! > > So, issue closed. The “transparency” involved 2 months of lawyers agonizing over a 1 1/2 page letter of explanation. They needed to feel confident that the offer of an unpaid position of advisor to the president doesn’t constitute something of value. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/144 "2010-05-28T17:47:22Z")
Why would they give him a job and also ask him not to run? Seems to me if the President offers you a prominent cabinet position you don’t go out and run for Senator by default. At least I think it would be considered bad form to accept a high cabinet position then go out and run for senator a few months later. Now, the President may have offered the job to clear the road for Specter but so what? Such strategic moves have happened time immemorial. Bet the Sumerians did it. ---
**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 28, 2010, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/145 "2010-05-28T17:49:25Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Just as a reminder, Bush and Cheney argued voiciferously that a President cannot be guilty of illegality if he is relying in good faith on the advice of Whitehouse Counsel. The Republicans now either have to accept that principle in Obama’s case or reject it for Bush. It looks to me that in this case the Whitehouse counsel wrote his memo after the fact, and they were not relying on it at the time. Is this incorrect? ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/146 "2010-05-28T18:07:06Z")
It’s a good thing Reagan is dead, or Issa would be on his ass… [![](http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/30549/bribe.jpg) ](http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/30549/bribe.jpg) ---
**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 28, 2010, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/147 "2010-05-28T18:09:46Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The “transparency” involved 2 months of lawyers agonizing over a 1 1/2 page letter of explanation. They needed to feel confident that the offer of an unpaid position of advisor to the president doesn’t constitute something of value. It was only a few days, actually. The conversation happened two months ago, but there was no reason to believe back then that there was any reason to make a public statement about it. Why would they? When has any President ever made public explanations about every conversation with a Congressperson about an advisory position? More significantly than the fact that there wa no offer for anything of value, there was no request for any “official act.” Allegations of “bribery” fail on both ends. ---
**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 28, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/148 "2010-05-28T18:13:33Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > It looks to me that in this case the Whitehouse counsel wrote his memo after the fact, and they were not relying on it at the time. Is this incorrect? I don’t know, actually. Now that you mention it, I guess the timeline isn’t clear. Still we all remember from the Bush era that it a Whitehouse Counsel says something is not illegal, it’s not illegal. Plus, it just doesn’t meet any reasonable standard of a statutory violation. Even if a paid job had been offered, no “official act” was requested. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/149 "2010-05-28T18:34:03Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > It’s a good thing Reagan is dead, or Issa would be on his ass… > > [http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/30549/bribe.jpg](http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/30549/bribe.jpg) I think it would be too much to call for his impeachment, seeing as how he’s been dead for 6 years, and out of office for 21, but couldn’t we at least get his name off our motherfucking airport? Or maybe just change the name of the airport to Impeach Reagan National Airport. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/150 "2010-05-28T19:49:32Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It was only a few days, actually. The conversation happened two months ago, but there was no reason to believe back then that there was any reason to make a public statement about it. Why would they? When has any President ever made public explanations about every conversation with a Congressperson about an advisory position? It was in February and what Sestak admitted to in an interview was a possible crime. He said he was offered a job in return for dropping out. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/151 "2010-05-28T20:37:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, that puts to rest my last point. I think to stay consistent with the claims of transparency, they should have explained this… and they did! > > So, issue closed. Well, OK. Sure. What are you up to? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/152 "2010-05-28T20:42:12Z")
I’m glad the administration was forthcoming with their answers here, and it does appear they didn’t do anything wrong. This all worked out pretty well for them, in fact, because they fulfilled their obligation to Specter but he won’t cause them any more headaches. I assume Sestak will be more to their liking if he gets elected. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/153 "2010-05-28T21:49:02Z")
First of all, how do Republicans use that _against_ Sestak? He turned it down! If he colluded with someone to drop out, THAT’s the violation. I know that the GOP simply wants to associate his name with illegal activities and their real motive is to paint all Dems in a bad light, but any honest person would consider Sestak more honest after that …nevermind, too late ---
**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 28, 2010, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/154 "2010-05-28T21:50:09Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It was in February and what Sestak admitted to in an interview was a possible crime. No it wasn’t. > [@](#): > > He said he was offered a job in return for dropping out. That’s not a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/155 "2010-05-29T03:51:12Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No it wasn’t. Did you even read the op thread opener: Sestak acknowledged in an interview in February that he was offered a position by an unnamed White House official - a potential violation of federal law > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s not a crime. Yes, it is. \*\* 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.\*\* This all comes down to Sestak’s lack of political savy. Talking about a quid pro quo offer publicly makes his party look stupid. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/156 "2010-05-29T04:08:02Z")
Perhaps it is your own lack of savvy, here. It could just as well be that he spoke publicly because he was entirely confident that there wasn’t anything worth concealing. This concurs with much expert opinion, and the clear, sober analysis of the Boards more brilliant minds. It would be perfectly reasonable for him to burnish his own reputation by such revelations, and even to embellish them. Witness his statement: > [@](#): > > …I said no. I told President Clinton that my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any offer. The former President said he knew I’d say that, and the conversation moved on to other subjects. > > “There are many important challenges facing Pennsylvania and the rest of the country. I intend to remain focused on those issues and continue my fight on behalf of working families.” Now, you and I know that he didn’t say any such a thing, such boilerplate platitudes aren’t a part of ordinary human conversation. He might have read it off a three by five card, so that he could say that’s what he said, with Horndog Bill grinning at this noob, Bill who showers off more political savvy every morning than Joe Sestak has ever had. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/157 "2010-05-29T04:17:36Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Perhaps it is your own lack of savvy, here. It could just as well be that he spoke publicly because he was entirely confident that there wasn’t anything worth concealing. This concurs with much expert opinion, and the clear, sober analysis of the Boards more brilliant minds. It would be perfectly reasonable for him to burnish his own reputation by such revelations, and even to embellish them. > > Witness his statement: > > Now, you and I know that he didn’t say any such a thing, such boilerplate platitudes aren’t a part of ordinary human conversation. He might have read it off a three by five card, so that he could say that’s what he said, with Horndog Bill grinning at this noob, Bill who showers off more political savvy every morning than Joe Sestak has ever had. Obviously Sestak waited until the White House released it’s official account of events before commenting on them. Unless someone wants to chase down phone and email records to prove a slip up it will always come down to a group effort wave of the collective hand. Sestak would be a fool to point fingers at his own party. Nothing good would come of it if he’s elected. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/158 "2010-05-29T04:28:23Z")
You are dangerously close to saying “Of course there’s really something there, else why would they be lying about it and pretending there isn’t?” ---
**Author:** ![bri1600bv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9fc29f/32.png) [@bri1600bv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bri1600bv)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/159 "2010-05-29T04:51:19Z")
Why did Axelrod say it would be a “serious violation of the law” if he had in fact, been offered a job if he dropped out? So he was told if he dropped out he’d be maybe given an unpaid position as an advisor to some…group or something. Doesn’t sound plausible. He said he was offerred a JOB, not some college internship. Whatever, I’m sure nothing will come of it. ---
**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 29, 2010, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/160 "2010-05-29T10:12:25Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m glad the administration was forthcoming with their answers here, and it does appear they didn’t do anything wrong. This all worked out pretty well for them, in fact, because they fulfilled their obligation to Specter but he won’t cause them any more headaches. I assume Sestak will be more to their liking if he gets elected. I guess that depends on what the meaning of the word “forthcoming” is. Well the WH has put out an explanation after months of “I have nothing furthers” … **Dio** believes them, end of story. We were promised higher standards (not that anyone with any brains would have believed it)… I’m just wondering if we have a new standard or the same old double standard. Seems like we were a little skeptical of WH spin not too long ago. One little conversation about a little old non-paying position with Slick Willy or an adminstrat official offering a high ranking job? Did Sestak just try to puff himself up a bit? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=9)