What don’t you understand. An attorney for the Justice department says it is illegal to offer a job in return for a political favor. The Senior Advisor to the President said it never happened but would be illegal. Sestak says it happened and this thread is a debate about whether he should expound on the event(s) in question.
Well, I will go on record saying that if what Sestak is claiming is true, it was illegal.
The original statement by Sestak that has caused all the fury stem from an interview 2/18/10 with Larry Kane:
I believe that the situation as described is in violation of:
Title 18 U.S.C. Section 600:
“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, **in 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…"
I believe that dropping out of a primary race to boost support for an alternate candidate would be considered political activity.
Title 18, U.S.C. Section 595:
“Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States … **uses his official authority for the purposes of interfering with, or affecting the nomination of, or the election of any candidate **for office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representative…"
I believe that the official authority to offer a “high up’ job” to boost support for an alternate candidate would be an attempt to interfere or affect the nomination process.
Title 18, U.S.C. Section 211:
“Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or **use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office **or place under the United…"
A bit more of a stretch, but a “high up’ job” or title could easily be considered a “thing of value”, and dropping out of the race could be considered using influence to obtain the position for an alternate candidate.
But I’ll be open to wait and see what Obama’s handlers can come up with as their official response to this.
Not that crime, no, because that’s not a crime.
Some people in this thread think it is.
It’s not. “Political activity” refers to an actual use of elected power. Not running for something doesn’t qualify, not that it’s been shown any such request was made in the first place.
It’s not. It’s been done since time immemorial.
A primary isn’t an election anyway, and I don’t believe it;'s been shown that Sestak was even an official candidate for anything when he was offered the job.
This did not happen, nor is there any allegation that it was offered.
It never has before, and really, it isn’t.
It also needs to be shown that the White House asked for anything in return. Not that it would matter if they did ask Sestak not to run, because that wouldn’t be illegal (see Reagan, see Clinton, see Bush…hell, I bet I could find evidence of George Washington doing it), but the thing that’s being incorrectly alleged to be illegal by bloviating, tendentious political hack demagogues like Dick Morris has not even been proven to have happened at all.
Obama’s statement will come out to shut people up, and that will be the end of it…well except for the people who would never accept any explanation or legal realities to begin with.
Primaries aren’t elections? Really? Seriously? Election laws don’t count? Is that a Chicago rule or do you have a cite for that?
I’m talking about folks like Issa who suddenly has some sort of moral compass and are trying to make hay.
I don’t believe this was a crime, but I also don’t agree with Diogenes’ reasoning.
No. In US v. Pintar, 630 F. 2d 1270 (8th Cir. 1980), Michael and Barbara Pintar were convicted of, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. § 600 for using funds from a federally-funded agency that was supposed to encourage economic development to hire an assistant to do political work. None of the people involved were elected officials. (Their conviction was overturned on other grounds).
Yes, it is. Jones v. Palmer Media, 478 F. Supp. 1124 (E.D. Texas 1979):
Really. No one who winds a Primary has won any elected office.
This looks off-pont to me. It calls a primary “part of the election prpocess,” but does not say it’s an election.
Cite that Sestk was an announced candidate for anything when he was maybe or maybe not offered a job anyway?
But it also refers to 18 USC 595 as the authority for the proposition that the right to participate in the federal election process is protected by statute, and in this case, the election invoved was a primary.
In other words, Jones v. Palmer Media is a case about a claim of interference in a primary, and the court cites 18 USC 595 as applying to the case. It’s pretty clear that the court finds that a primary is an election within the meaning of 18 USC 595.
Now, admittedly, it’s (a) dicta, since this was a civil case that was lost anyway; and (b) not precedential.
Yeah, I was just thinking that, that this was dicta, and not precedential.
I was just gonna use that same bluff. Great minds think alike
Twisted minds as well, it would seem.
Nonetheless, I would not wish to hang my hat on “Primaries are not elections.”
I think it’s far better to say that when you’re talking about Presidential appointments, you’re discussing an Article II power, and Congress simply doesn’t have the power to criminalize the President’s action of extending a offer of appointment to any person who happens to be in, or running for, public office. It would eviscerate the President’s ability to “…nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. . . appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…”
It’s not only not illegal, it’s not justicible.
There is no allegation whatsoever that Sestak would have had to support Specter, or oppose Toomey, even if there was a quid pro quo, which has not been established at all. That’s the plain language requirement of the law. Also, I fail to see how NOT running for office is a “political activity.” In such case, then any member of Congress who accepts a job in the Administration would be guilty of violating this law, since that member’s NOT running for re-election would violate the law. That produces a nonsensical result, and so the law should not be read that way.
This law clearly relates to sandbagging legitimate candidates to keep them off the ballot when they want to be on. For example, if an election official “accidentally” loses key forms to that then causes someone to miss a candidacy filing deadline.
Again, you’re misreading this. The law is talking about someone getting political contributions or being personally enriched in order to obtain a political appointment for a third person. Think Governor Blago and the whole “this Senate seat is gold and I’m going to cash in.”
Well it turns out there was no job offer, the President or Rahm asked Bill Clinton to talk to Sestak about not running and possibly he could have an unpaid advisory role in the adminstration. In fact, they specifically did not offer himj a job because they wanted him to stay in the Congress.
Now, about that special prosecuter for the Valerie Plame leak…
Apparently the latest is that Sestak was offered an unpaid position on the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board if he agreed to remain in Congress. The idea is that he would remain in Congress while serving on this board, and he presumably could have gone to the Senate and done the same. So speculation by many in this thread that there was no quid pro quo and it was just a strategy to remove him from the race was incorrect.
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.)
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.