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.
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?
False. I know several people who offered temp employment to young women and found out it was against the law.
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.
Every thread on this site involving Bush is a cite 
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.
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?
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.
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?
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…
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.
Sorry for the hijack here, but this part of elucidator’s quote from Steve Benen’s post on washingtonmonthly.com grabbed my attention:
Whoa! What on earth is he referring to there?
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.
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) documents some substantial ethics violations, in particular the acceptance of gifts from energy companies. However, the money quote from the article is this:
So, surprisingly, this is one of the few times where “literally” literally means “literally.”
A simple “I don’t know” would have sufficed.
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”.
According to Axelrod it would be a serious crime if true:
from the Philly Post: **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. **
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.