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.
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.
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.
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
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.
An official stating his support for a candidate isn’t illegal. An official using his official powers to support a candidate is illegal.
Not according to the code you cited. Unless “affecting” does not include trying to influence the electorate.
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.
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.
Offering a position that only that office has the authority to offer.
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.
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.
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.
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…
So Republicans going over Libertarian signatures, or Democrats scrutinizing Green ones, with a fine-toothed comb than usual is illegal? Good to know…
Ah, ok. I misunderstood, I guess. No blood, no foul. Play on!
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.
A President can’t endorse a candidate?
What official poewers did Obama use to support a candidate anyway?
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.
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.
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.
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.