This whole Joe-Sestak-job-offer thing is getting odd — and the longer it drags on, the worse it gets for the White House. What should have been a nothing story is threatening to become an actual political scandal. Haven’t we seen this show before?
Back in February, Rep. Sestak alleged that the Obama Administration offered him a political appointment — a “high up job” — to drop out of the Democratic Senate primary in Pennsylvania against Senator Arlen Specter. This would not be a big deal other than for the existence of a federal law barring the offer of employment for political purposes. 18 U.S.C.§ 600 provides:
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.
See also 18 USC § 211 and 18 USC § 595. If Sestak was telling the truth, someone in the White House may have violated federal law.
Now that Sestak has won the primary, the press has become more interested in the story, but has yet to get any details from either Sestak or the White House. Meanwhile, Sestak is sticking to his story, and now it seems folks are scrambling to get their stories straight.
The initial White House response was to deny that Sestak was ever offered a job, yet Sestak stuck to his story. So someone was lying. After a week or so of Administration officials saying nothing more than there nothing “inappropriate” occurred, the President has now promised an “official” response. Oddly, the President insists that “nothing improper” happened, but is unable (or unwilling) to provide the details — details he should have at his command if he is in a position to assure the press that “nothing improper” occurred.
In the meantime, the Washington Post reports Sestak’s brother (and campaign counsel) has recently met with White House folks about the allegations and the planned White House response. What’s the point of this if not to make sure everyone gets their stories straight so the issue will go away. This sort of thing only strengthens Senate Republicans’ demand for a special prosecutor. (Of course, one wonders why Sestak told reporters about his brother’s contacts with the White House. Doesn’t he know when to shut up? Or does he have it in for someone in the White House?)
What do I think happened? I suspect some reasonably important White House official strongly suggested Sestak would be in line for a plum appointment if he cleared the way for Specter’s reelection, unaware that federal law prohibits this sort of thing. Sestak blabbed, but has been too stubborn to retract the statement, while the White House has sought to cover for whoever made the offer. Circling the wagons in this fashion is understandable, but it never turns out well — just ask any veteran of any of the past several administrations. Instead of forcing one politico to slink off into the shadows, the Administration has let this issue fester into what come become an unneeded election-year scandal. Again, if there’s no there there, it should be easy for the White House to explain why. A delayed “official” response will only fan the flames higher, and keep this story in the news.
ADDENDUM: Here’s my take on what should have happened. Once the press picked up the story, whoever in the White House had spoken to Sestak should have come forward and said that they had communicated to him the desire not to have a contested primary, that his value to the Party was recognized, and that there would certainly be opportunities for someone like him in the Administration — perhaps even right away as a commenter suggests below (which would have required that he drop out) — and that any implication that a specific job was being offered as a quid pro quo for Sestak leaving the race was unintended. Had someone done that a few weeks back, this would have been a non-story. Help-our-guy-and-we’ll-help-you deals are common in politics, and hardly the stuff of which major scandals are made — unless they’yre mishandled, as I believe this was.
UPDATE: And there’s even a Clinton angle.
SECOND UPDATE: Here is the official White House response, a memo from White House counsel Bob Bauer explaining what occurred and why no laws were broken. Marc Ambinder comments: “If Rep. Sestak differs in his recollection, then the story will continue to be a story. If not, it won’t be.”
FINAL UPDATE: Chris Cilliza on how a non-story became a story.
rhhardin says:
while the White House has sought to cover for whomever made the offer.
“Whoever.” It’s the subject of “made.”
[Oops. Fixed. Thx. JHA]
May 28, 2010, 9:32 amAngus says:
What do I think happen? Someone in the White House wanted Sestak to drop out, and so offered him a job starting “immediately,” meaning Sestak would have to give up the race. Sestak understood this properly as a “drop out and we’ll reward you offer,” but no one really said it in those terms precisely because of the legal questions.
May 28, 2010, 9:36 amCurious passerby says:
Angus says:
May 28, 2010, 9:42 amWhat do I
thinkhope happen[ed]?Angus says:
Ok, Curious. Adler gave what he think happened. I gave what I think happened. Got anything interesting of your own to add? Does it involve secret Kenyan Muslim Communists?
May 28, 2010, 9:45 amCornellian says:
What do I think happened? I suspect some reasonably important White House official strongly suggested Sestak would be in line for a plum appointment if he cleared the way for Specter’s reelection, unaware that federal law prohibits this sort of thing.
Yawn. Such “clear the path” appointments are as routine in DC as long-winded speeches, to say nothing of what happens in state capitols. Was it illegal for Obama to appoint Huntsman ambassador to China even if he knew that meant Huntsman wouldn’t be a candidate for the Republican nomination in 2012? Was it illegal to appoint Clinton Secretary of State to keep her “inside the tent” for the duration of his administration?
May 28, 2010, 9:50 amSarcastro says:
IMPEACHMENT IS HERE!
May 28, 2010, 9:55 amIP98 says:
but no one really said it in those terms precisely because of the legal questions.
This is what the media and pundits have been doing all along with this story. They all talk like they know what was said when in reality they have no idea. Everyone is so anxious to stick up for the WH. Reporters that act like they are dogged seekers of the truth make up their own beliefs of what happened.
If no one made an offer to Sestak he has lied repeatedly. And Sestak has never said anything was couched in a way to give everyone plausible deniability.
And the WH has just asked us to trust them, they looked into everything and no one did anything wrong. It seems they would have gotten this behind them a long time ago if they really did find nothing wrong.
If a law was broken it hardly rises to the level of Watergate so just address the question.
May 28, 2010, 9:55 amBorris says:
It is obvious those suggesting the Obama White House committed a crime are motivated by “straight up” racism.
May 28, 2010, 9:57 amzuch says:
It’s Not the Crime, It’s the Cover-Up — Sestak Edition
No, it’s like the Clinton-era Republican strategy: “It’s Not A Crime, But Let’s Make Sh*te Up And Pretend It Is And Hope The Rubes Are Too Stoopid To Catch On Edition”
Cheers,
May 28, 2010, 9:59 amBen P says:
Tired line or the most tired line?
May 28, 2010, 10:00 amcboldt says:
I don’t think Sestak was unconditionally offered a job, an offer he would be free to accept or reject.
May 28, 2010, 10:04 amMy thought is based on WH denial that Sestak was offered a job, and rejected the offer. I expect the revised story from the WH to be that Sestak was offered an appointment, and he turned down the offer.
I don’t see any statement from Sestak that says he was given a conditional offer, i.e., you drop out first, then we’ll make an appointment (or nomination).
cboldt says:
Spoke too soon. From the WaPo link …
May 28, 2010, 10:08 amcecil kirksey says:
“. 18 U.S.C.§ 600 provides:
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.”
So how is one to interpret “benefit”? If I as a candidate promise to pass the ABC Act if you will support me and the ABC Act provides for direct monetary benefits to you, am I in violation of the law? Just curious.
May 28, 2010, 10:11 ammack says:
Same old, same old….sometimes they just get too arrogant or sloppy and get caught. Typical politics – it’s the Chicago way (all politics) – ask Rham. Not so much the bribery as the cover-up – the obsession with control because they know what is best, they are good, so therefore their intentions or actions are categorically good so there is nothing to see here – please ignore the man behind the curtain.
I highly doubt anything will come of this, the republicans have no power to push a real investigation and the press will get bored with it.
Personally, I don’t care so much about this story anyway – everyone who thinks knows the game that is played between team democrat and team republican as they pay musical chairs over whose in control this week. Both parties seek more and more governmental control over the mass of the people and both pursue policies that result in the diminution of the middle class and the individual.
May 28, 2010, 10:14 amWill says:
I think you have it right. I would bet that this happens at all levels of government. I recall years ago hearing from a solid source that our state AG, who was thinking seriously of running for Gov against the then-Lt.Gov, was offered a judicial nomination to a federal circuit court if he did not run. We thought he should of taken it but he did not and also did not run. Must happen often this way.
May 28, 2010, 10:15 amPer Son says:
I see it now.
First, Obama will say nothing happened.
Second, Obama will say if anyone made an offer for a job, they will be fired.
Third, Obama will say if anyone is convicted of making an offer, they will be fired.
Fourth, Obama will say, wait the punishment is too harsh, I’ll commute the sentence.
Kinda familiar.
May 28, 2010, 10:15 amGordon Langston says:
Prelude to “Beers with Sestak” and Sarcastro.
May 28, 2010, 10:18 amInstapundit » Blog Archive » WAPO: White House asked Clinton to talk to Sestak about Senate run. More on the Sestak scandal, he… says:
[...] WAPO: White House asked Clinton to talk to Sestak about Senate run. More on the Sestak scandal, here. [...]
May 28, 2010, 10:19 amBobC says:
How do you distinguish national party strategy from what this law provides? Obviously, no national party would want their 30 top people campaigning for the same congressional seat, so it is in their interest to find best fits. And when you have the executive branch, executive appointments are a part of this strategy.
If I run for office, I am campaigning on modifying this law.
May 28, 2010, 10:22 amcboldt says:
– If I as a candidate promise to pass the ABC Act if you will support me and the ABC Act provides for direct monetary benefits to you, am I in violation of the law? –
May 28, 2010, 10:25 amNo, but the answer isn’t tied to the definition of “benefit.” A single legislator can’t pass anything, can only vote in favor or against. So your “promise to pass” is bogus to begin with.
The law aims to curtail activity in the nature of bribery, and adopting policy positions isn’t bribery. I think that promising more welfare to a dependent class of voters is sound election politics (probably not good for long-term social stability, but that’s a separate discussion), but those promises aren’t bribery either.
arthur says:
It’s worse than you think. The administration offered jobs to several HUNDRED individuals in early 2009, almost all of whom would have been inferior candidates for Senate, and NONE of those who accepted jobs were able to run for Senate in 2010. Obama was fully aware at the time of each of those appointments that none of them would be able to run for Senate. Every one of those appintees has been receiving tax dollars ever since. The articles of impeachment will have many many counts.
May 28, 2010, 10:30 ammack says:
When I run for office I’m campaigning to outlaw politcal parties and instead of elections have random drawings for political offices.
May 28, 2010, 10:30 amcecil kirksey says:
So if Sestak was being suggested for say SECDOD which requires Senate approval or any other Senate approved position then the law doesn’t apply? Just asking.
May 28, 2010, 10:30 amORID says:
Isn’t the Executive Branch (DoJ) in charge of prosecuting this law? Seems like a huge conflict of interest, or a big hole in the law. Although I’m not sure how to change the law that doesn’t intrude on the balance of powers.
May 28, 2010, 10:33 amMike says:
WaPo says it was Clinton that made the offer. Let’s put him under oath and get the truth. No, wait…. maybe that’s not going to work. Be fun to watch, though.
May 28, 2010, 10:33 amShawn Smith says:
Crime or not…why is this a surprise coming from a Chicago politician like Obama? This is typical Chicago politics…if you can’t beat them, then join them.
May 28, 2010, 10:35 amcboldt says:
– How do you distinguish national party strategy from what this law provides? –
May 28, 2010, 10:36 amParty support and party pressure isn’t provided for or made possible by act of congress.
– And when you have the executive branch, executive appointments are a part of this strategy. –
Unconditionally making the appointment is not afoul of the law.
Steve says:
I don’t understand Prof. Adler’s title. He’s implying that if everyone had just admitted to offering Sestak a job, there would have been no story, but then he goes on to suggest that he actually believes it would be a crime to offer Sestak a job in exchange for dropping out of the primary. I’m not sure this makes sense, other than in the context that “Obama’s Watergate” is apparently the talking point of the day. Quaere whether it’s really fair to put Obama through Obama’s Watergate while we’re still in the midst of Obama’s Katrina.
May 28, 2010, 10:38 amTamerlane says:
Obama’s “More rather than less, sooner rather than later” moment. I suspect that Rahm Emmanuel is about to face a Scooter Libby ordeal, with the significant difference that Libby had far more friends (some) and far fewer enemies than the bag man from Chicago.
May 28, 2010, 10:40 amCatoRenasci says:
Jonathan Adler wrote:
Nothing story? But for that pesky law prohibiting political bribery of precisely the sort that seems to have occurred here.
While I think it’s likely that someone who was supposed to be more circumspect, wasn’t, this is a real scandal. It is inconceivable that any sort feeler to Sestak for a cabinet level appointment did not have explicit approval from Obama.
If whoever made the offer to Sestak did in fact cross the line, then it goes all the way up to Obama, and is probably one of the sort of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ that warrant impeachment.
The only reasonable arguments against impeachment are (1) even if the Republicans win control of the Senate in November, the Democratic Senators would be able to prevent Obama’s conviction regardless of the evidence, and (2) Biden would be even worse than Obama.
May 28, 2010, 10:41 amWidmerpool says:
Yet another example of how the federalization of criminal law has turned grey behavior into a black and white nightmare (although this is a closer call in that it concerns an area the feds have some interest in). Hardball politics should not be a federal offense–thanks again, Richard Nixon, for poisoning the well so that now everyone involved in politics at the federal level is arguably guilty of violating some federal criminal statute. Will we never be rid of the specter of Tricky Dick?
May 28, 2010, 10:42 amcboldt says:
– So if Sestak was being suggested for say SECDOD which requires Senate approval or any other Senate approved position then the law doesn’t apply? Just asking. –
May 28, 2010, 10:43 amI think I see what you are getting at, and I don’t think the presence of a confirmation hurdle cures a violation in the nature of “I’ll nominate you IF you drop out this race.”
This is different from a legislator’s policy position – not that a policy position couldn’t be obtained with a bribe; that’s not how I took the question about providing a benefit in exchange for support. But “support” could be in the nature of a bribe for taking a policy position.
Kamal says:
Instead of worrying that our president is starting wars over vendettas and oil.. we are wondering if the president made an improper job offer.
This is change I can believe in.
May 28, 2010, 10:44 amChris Bell says:
Only if you squint and look at the law sideways.
It’s pretty clear that the law prohibits offering jobs in exchange for votes (or other similar activities, like issuing regulations or ruling on cases). Offering a job to someone if they drop out of a primary is not a crime. And if it is a crime, then every president in recent memory has violated the law multiple times.
So republicans will demand investigations and carefully state that the law “may” have been broken, but they know better than to come out and say it.
Obama should have come out and said “yes, we offered him a job if he would drop out. So what? BFD.”
May 28, 2010, 10:45 amChris says:
What I think is funny is that Team Obama apparently didn’t know (or didn’t care?) that Sestak is a proud member of Team Clinton. Either way they were going to get fooked on this deal. Best to just follow the guidance by commenter “Per Son”, above.
All that being said, no idea why the Obamas didn’t fight harder for Specter. It was close enough where perhaps his (diminishing) influence could’ve helped.
May 28, 2010, 10:47 amPZ says:
It will be the typical Obama response. He will just tell you nothing inappropriate happened. He won’t tell you what happened (and thereby let you make the judgment) because he’s smart and you’re dumb. So there’s no point in telling you. If you keep asking questions, it’s just because you either didn’t hear him tell you it was not inappropriate or you’re just too stupid to understand him.
May 28, 2010, 10:49 amIP98 says:
In Illinois Blago is wondering what he did wrong.
May 28, 2010, 10:52 amDonP. says:
Please guys.
The whole Sestak thing is classic Chicago politics and I’m pretty sure Axelrod, Rahm and the rest of the Cubs fans in DC don’t see any reason to change their playbook.
Not that long ago Luis Guitierrez was becoming a serious political force with the Hispanic voting Bloc in Chicago with open ambitions for the mayors office. All of a sudden the Daley controlled Regular Democrat Organization felt he would be the perfect candidate for an “open” and secure house seat.
Prior to the Blago arrest Jesse Jackson Jr. was also looking fondly at City Hall. All of a sudden his wife became an actively supported and very successful candidate for Alderman. (Chicago has NO Alderwomen or Alderpersons).
There is no shortage of similar stories with varying degrees of shame attached. The political types here see this as business as usual. Blago was just arrogant enough to let it all get recorded on tape. That was his real sin – stupidity and hubris, not “selling” a Senate seat.
This is actually pretty typical of how any effective community organizer (the first step in Chicago politics) gets to the next square on the chessboard. Use your leverage with a voting bloc or your access to “interesting” information to get support from the Dem power brokers. The party boss quietly suggests that someone “retire” to a consultancy with Streets and Sanitation or a position on the Cook County Board, at double the rate of their current pay, and it’s a done deal.
(And, since our Illinois Attorney General is the daughter of the Speaker of the House and Democrat Majority Leader, who also is Chicago’s most successful tax attorney, funny how that works, it’s unlikely that it will change anytime soon.)
I’m betting that there are some people in DC that are actually a little surprised and shocked that some Pollyanna types think there is any problem with trading a handshake (no paper trail) promise of reward for a change in a vote or dropping out of an election. They’re used to ignoring media inquiries and stonewalling as an effective tactic. It works for Daley, why not them?
May 28, 2010, 10:52 amSteve says:
Here’s my take on what should have happened. Once the press picked up the story, whomever in the White House had spoken to Sestak should have come forward and said that they had communicated to him the desire not to have a contested primary, that his value to the Party was recognized, and that there would certainly be opportunities for someone like him in the Administration — perhaps even right away as a commenter suggests below (which would have required that he drop out) — and that any implication that a specific job was being offered as a quid pro quo for Sestak leaving the race was unintended.
That’s a great idea if this is what actually happened. If it didn’t, then this post amounts to “they made a mistake by covering up, when they should have just lied!” Let’s say, hypothetically, they told this story and then Sestak – still trying to curry favor as the “outsider” candidate – tells the press “no, they literally offered me a job to drop out!” Now you’re in an even worse mess – which, again, highlights the problem with covering up.
May 28, 2010, 10:53 amDaveR says:
“Obviously, no national party would want their 30 top people campaigning for the same congressional seat.” Correct, but the idea to a party is that the party decides who it will support to the exclusion of the other 29. Maybe that approach works or maybe it doesn’t but that is the proper process. The President, as the head of his party, supported Specter. Any other approach to any other candidate is probably illegal, regardless of who makes the approach.
May 28, 2010, 10:54 amBy illegal I mean that they must either be offering something of value (here, consider “this” instead of running) or making a threat (if you run you will have “this” happen to you).
OK, I suppose there could be an appeal to patriotism, “Your nation will be worse off if you run; please don’t do that to America!”, but that is not a narrative I can even imagine happening in the last century or so.
Federal Farmer says:
Sestak is Republican?
May 28, 2010, 10:55 amConstantin says:
Maybe before, but not in The Most Transparent Administration Ever. Besides, Barack said nothing improper happened. Actually, he assured us (not sure if that’s a higher degree of authority than “Let me be clear,” but still . . .). So just drop it.
May 28, 2010, 10:55 amAdam Greenwood says:
The Greeks sometimes did it that way. Worked OK for them.
May 28, 2010, 11:03 amPer Son says:
Simpsons did it.
May 28, 2010, 11:07 amChris Bell says:
“Sen. S.I. Hayakawa on Wednesday spurned a Reagan administration suggestion that if he drops out of the crowded Republican Senate primary race in California, President Reagan would find him a job.” (link)
May 28, 2010, 11:08 ammls says:
This is how the game works. First, politicians pass a law making it a crime for politicians to do what they routinely do. Then, when a politician is unlucky enough to be caught doing what politicians routinely do, all of his or her political enemies scream about the rule of law and demand special prosecutors. And all of his or her friends complain that the other side is criminalizing politics. The fact that each side has made precisely the opposite argument on multiple occasions troubles none of them a wit.
May 28, 2010, 11:11 amsashal says:
please, please let’s do impeachment.
May 28, 2010, 11:11 amLet’s the fun of brain dead republicanism with no substance and ideas continue
bailey says:
Yawn, it’s just politics. Lots of Chicago pols, including George Ryan, all sorts of Cook County lackeys and now Blago have made this argument. They usually end up convicted because the average juror finds what they do disgusting and dishonest when it finally ends up in Court. If that’s the defense, good luck.
May 28, 2010, 11:16 amConstantin says:
Because he’s poison right now. I’m sure his staggering narcissism wouldn’t let him admit it, but presumably someone else up there found a way to keep him occupied (golf, probably). He could have helped in Philadelphia, probably, but the gains would be canceled out by the reminders to the bitter clingers he maligned two years ago–remember that was in PA.
There’s also the fact that, though he ran from the left in the primary and is having a big problem right now, Sestak probably is a better general election candidate than Specter would have been.
May 28, 2010, 11:17 amkeypusher64 says:
Yes, this. 18 U.S.C. s. 600 sounds like a stupid, overbroad law with infinite capacity for mischief. What were they thinking when they passed it?
May 28, 2010, 11:17 amcecil kirksey says:
You maybe uou are correct but the law specifically states “other benefit” and “or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit”. If I as presidential candidate promise to make sure that your claim for SS disability benefits is looked at if you help elect me, then is this a problem? I think the law will fall on the verb “promises”. If Sestak was being suggested for a position if he dropped out of the senate race does that constitute a “promise”?
May 28, 2010, 11:23 amB.D. says:
JHA, you’re obviously much smarter than me, so I could be wrong about this . . . but I think you made the same mistake in your addendum, re: whomever/whoever.
May 28, 2010, 11:26 amTexEd says:
No one has mentioned the role that Spector might play in this. Certainly, he found some evidence way back in the campaign when the offer wasn’t news. Obama has to be concerned about what Spector knows and know that anything he has will be leaked. Obama’s story, therefore, has to be congruent with Spector’s proof. Should Sestak get thrown under the bus, Arlen might be rehabilitated.
May 28, 2010, 11:31 amkeypusher64 says:
Once the press picked up the story, whomever in the White House had spoken to Sestak should have come forward and said that they had communicated to him the desire not to have a contested primary, that his value to the Party was recognized, and that there would certainly be opportunities for someone like him in the Administration — perhaps even right away as a commenter suggests below (which would have required that he drop out) — and that any implication that a specific job was being offered as a quid pro quo for Sestak leaving the race was unintended. Had someone done that a few weeks back, this would have been a non-story. Help-our-guy-and-we’ll-help-you deals are common in politics, and hardly the stuff of which major scandals are made — unless they’yre mishandled, as I believe this was.
The problem with this suggestion is, given the wording of these statutes, there would still be a decent argument that someone in the administration committed a felony, particularly if the offer to Sestak was more specific (as may well be the case) than the “opportunities in the administration” formulation suggests.
Rather often in Washington, someone gets in trouble for (possibly) violating a really stupid law, and then being less than forthcoming about it, because he or she doesn’t want to cop to a felony. A political storm results, and the refrain goes up, “it’s not the crime, it’s the coverup.” Well, I’m sorry, but in this case that is utter nonsense. There is a coverup because somebody in the administration could be facing ruination and maybe even jail time for doing something that isn’t even a tiny little bit wrong. That there would be a coverup under these circumstances is as predictable as the sunrise. The crime is that offering Sestak a high administration job so he wouldnt’ run against Specter is a crime.
Let me put it this way: suppose David Axelrod told Sestak he would be appointed Secretary of the Navy if he didn’t run in the Pennsylvania Senate race. Does anyone think that should be a misdemeanor, let alone a felony? Professor Adler? Anyone else?
May 28, 2010, 11:32 amB.D. says:
Is Bill Clinton going to fall on his sword for Obama?
May 28, 2010, 11:33 amShelbyC says:
He’s smarter than me wrt most things as well I’m sure, but not wrt the use of who vs. whom. You are correct.
May 28, 2010, 11:52 amDave N. says:
I am struck by the number of commenters who somehow want to drag Republicans into this mess — Sestak is a Democrat and so is the WH. But hey, why let partisan hatred get in the way of rational comment?
May 28, 2010, 11:56 amjames says:
I think all of you are missing the far larger issue for this great nation if this turns into Obama’s Political Oil Spill and he is impeached: We get Biden in charge.
May 28, 2010, 11:56 amBenjamin Davis says:
It feels like it has Rahm Emmanuel’s fingers all over it, but that is pure speculation.
May 28, 2010, 11:59 amBest,
Ben
Soronel Haetir says:
The thing I don’t get about this story is I would have thought both Obama personally and the Democrats as a party would have been happy to replace Specter with Sestak. Why the games to keep a not-very-reliable guy on-board? Is Senate seniority really that much more valuable than party commitment?
I have a hard time believing that Specter is more electable, or that anyone at the WH would have seen him as such.
May 28, 2010, 11:59 amcaliforniamom says:
No. Sestak needs to watch out for that bus speeding towards him. He’s about to get thrown under.
May 28, 2010, 12:00 pmkeypusher64 says:
They’re going to throw their nominee for a critical Senate seat under the bus? I don’t think so. If someone gets thrown under the bus, it’s not going to be Sestak.
May 28, 2010, 12:05 pmDave N. says:
My own take (and everyone who reads this blog regularly knows my partisan leanings) are that there was an unstated quid pro quo, though probably made in a manner that strongly suggested the desired outcome without crossing a line. Something along the lines of:
And I don’t see a violation in my hypothetical, veiled conversation.
On the other hand, the White House looks like they are trying to hide something. That’s what gives this kerfuffle legs.
May 28, 2010, 12:06 pmJonathan H. Adler says:
I don’t know whether I’m smarter than either of you. One thing is certain — I failed to master the who/whom thing in grade school.
May 28, 2010, 12:08 pmJHA
Mark Horning says:
I believe it was right the first time. “White House” is the subject. Whom is the object of the preposition “for”, thus “for whomever” is correct since the useage is in the objective case.
May 28, 2010, 12:08 pmShelbyC says:
What’s the big deal, it’s a misdemeanor anyway. Try him, give him a fine and probation, and move on.
May 28, 2010, 12:08 pmfrankcross says:
I remember when Reagan did this with Hayakawa, and the Administration was quite open about it, and no legal controversy ensued.
What does this say?
May 28, 2010, 12:09 pmAre we much tougher today on this sort of action?
Is there an Obamaphobia?
Angus says:
Right — it’s not Republicans playing this up as the biggest scandal since Watergate… /sarc
May 28, 2010, 12:12 pmjstar says:
A Democratic Senate nomination is a f****** valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.
May 28, 2010, 12:15 pmwordsmith says:
The White House Counsel’s memo is here.
May 28, 2010, 12:15 pmIt does not deny (and seems to indirectly concede) a quid pro quo. The entire defense seems to be that the offer was for an unpaid advisory position. But the statute refers to “any … position … or other benefit.”
Perhaps the case law sheds some more light on whether an unpaid advisory position is a “position.”
Dave N. says:
The easy way to remember whether “who” or “whom” is appropriate is to substiute “he” and “him” or “they” and “them”.
If “he” or “they” fits then the appropriate word is “who”.
If “him” or “them” fits then the appropriate word is “whom”.
May 28, 2010, 12:19 pmSteve says:
The thing I don’t get about this story is I would have thought both Obama personally and the Democrats as a party would have been happy to replace Specter with Sestak. Why the games to keep a not-very-reliable guy on-board?
Getting Specter to switch parties was very important for Obama’s legislative agenda. It would be hard to get him to switch – and to persuade future party-switchers – if the party was just going to sell him down the river afterwards. Oh wait, another possible quid pro quo!
May 28, 2010, 12:20 pmcaliforniamom says:
What’s one Senate seat compared to a scandal leading to the Oval Office?
But the ‘unpaid position’ defense just doesn’t pass the smell test. Why would someone give up a chance at a Senate seat for some sort of vague unpaid position with no title, no visibility, no money?
If Sestak is smart, he waits to see how this ‘unpaid position’ story is playing in public opinion and if it’s not being believed, he goes on the attack and tells his full story. Who said what to whom and what position he was offered, etc. He separates himself from an increasingly unpopular White House and earns the respect of independent voters.
May 28, 2010, 12:25 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Yah. How many of us diagrammed sentences in middle school? Raise your hand. “Whom” and “whomever” are only appropriate when they are objects, not subjects.
The link about Hayakawa and Reagan is pretty interesting. I noticed, though, that both the person in the administration and Hayakawa said no offer had been made, and that the smoking gun was evidently “In an interview earlier this week, Ed Rollins, who will become the president’s chief political adviser in January, said Hayakawa wiould be offered an administrative post if he decided not to seek re-election. No offer has been made directly to Hayakawa, Rollins said.”
Looks to me like either, (a), Rollins made this offer to Hayakawa, but instead of making it directly to him, he for whatever reason made it indirectly through an interview he evidently expected Hayakawa to read and respond to; or (b) the reporter asked if Hayakawa would be picked up by the administration for some kind of post if he didn’t run for reelection, and Rollins said he probably would, and the reporter spun it. Quel suprise.
May 28, 2010, 12:27 pmDave N. says:
Interestingly though, there are two things missing from this Democratic talking point:
1) Hayakawa did not run for re-election.
2) Hayakawa was appointed Special Advisor to the Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs — which, I don’t know, ranks right up there with being a U.S. Senator in importance.
May 28, 2010, 12:31 pmDG says:
People need to keep an open mind on this – Sestak has a reputation as a real scumbag in the Navy. He could be spinning this himself.
May 28, 2010, 12:33 pmShelbyC says:
Of course, it can get tricky. Had the sentence read, for example,
would who or whom be correct?
[Edit: nevermind, bad example]
May 28, 2010, 12:33 pmuh_clem says:
You’re probably correct about your hypothetical. These “offers” are very commonplace, and I’m sure the folks engaging in them are savvy enough to know where the legal line is.
As for what’s giving the kerfuffle legs, it’s a thousand bloggers participating in a noise machine: throw as much crap as you can and see what sticks.
May 28, 2010, 12:35 pmBlue says:
It blows my mind that the “don’t run, we’ve got a better offer for you” classic bit of political horse trading has been criminalized. That’s absolutely absurd.
May 28, 2010, 12:35 pmDave N. says:
I think “who” would be appropriate.
Next thing you know, though, we will all be diagramming sentences on the VC because it is so much fun.
May 28, 2010, 12:38 pmwhidby says:
As you recent posts indicate, you are very, very eager to parrot any news story or blog post that you find damaging to the Obama administration.
Aside from the fact that you have no credibility, I just love your feigned shock at the idea that political appointments are sometimes, you know, political.
May 28, 2010, 12:41 pmDave N. says:
And the White House’s inept response and stonewalling hasn’t added any fuel to the fire?
May 28, 2010, 12:41 pmDave N. says:
If you don’t like it here, nobody forces you to read this.
And don’t let the door hit you on your way out.
When I see this kind of comment from an unfamiliar nom de blog, I realize that sometimes a troll is just a troll.
Now go back to Kos — and be gone with you.
May 28, 2010, 12:46 pmSteve says:
Interestingly though, there are two things missing from this Democratic talking point…
So, your rebuttal to the Democratic talking point that Hayakawa was offered a job if he didn’t run again is that (1) he didn’t run again and (2) he then got a job? That is not what I would call a devastating takedown.
The standard error (and I thought it was crazy that anyone would think Sestak got offered a job as important as Secretary of the Navy, but what do I know) is to assume that the proffered job would have to be really really powerful in order to be more attractive than serving as a Senator. The mistake is that the deal is not “resign your job as a Senator and take this job instead.” The deal is “if you’re interested in giving up a difficult race for the Senate that you may very well lose, we can offer you something comfortable.” Anyone who passionately wants to be in the Senate is unlikely to take whatever deal, but not everyone passionately wants to be in the Senate.
May 28, 2010, 12:49 pmCareless says:
For the record, White Sox fans rule Chicago. Cubs fans get to enjoy being insulted by the president as “not serious” baseball fans.
May 28, 2010, 12:55 pmAnderson says:
Has Prof. Adler seen *any* legal authority that the alleged job offer violated the law?
Jon Chait would suggest that he “listen to former Bush administration ethics counsel Richard Painter.”
Nothing to see here, folks.
May 28, 2010, 12:55 pmDon de Drain says:
Dave N–
If I had to bet, I’d bet your hypothetical dialogue closely resembles the actual conversation. But if there is hard proof of a true quid pro quo offer, and someone is going to go down over this, it will be Rahm.
Given the frequency with which these types of conversations occur on both sides of the political aisle, however, the political establishment has a strong incentive to not have a prosecution. So I rate the chances of an actual prosecution at less than 5%, regardless of what actually happened.
That won’t stop Republicans– or Libertarian bloggers– from trying to drag down/slow down Obama over this.
And if we all get lucky, Rahm will resign.
May 28, 2010, 12:56 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I think diagramming sentences is fun.
Also, I am a nerd. But I repeat myself.
May 28, 2010, 1:01 pmras says:
Many people have been worried that the Dems would ramp up their efforts to push thru as much of their agenda as possible before the midterms, much as they pushed thru Obamacare, regardless of the public disgust.
But to accomplish that, they would need some way to “compensate” those elected reps who would lose their seats, else those same reps, being careerists first, would be less likely to go along with the plan, perhaps significantly so.
IMHO, the real significance of the Sestak story is that compensation, at least in the form of high-profile appointments, just became tougher to deliver.
May 28, 2010, 1:02 pmSteve says:
Cubs fans get to enjoy being insulted by the president as “not serious” baseball fans.
As we all know, 85% of people go to work, and the other 15% go to Cubs games.
May 28, 2010, 1:05 pmdave lloyd says:
Someone w/ White House connections invites a room full of lobbyists to write the laws and regulations for the energy industry — in secret.
No crime there, right — no matter how much money they contributed to one party or withheld from another. And the public never gets to know the who, what, when, or how.
Then a well in the Gulf blows out.
And this is what Adler’s talking about?
May 28, 2010, 1:12 pmKazinski says:
You left out the money quote from Hayakawa:
The Sestak offer is clearly different. He alleges that there was actual contact with the administration, and a job was offered.
I do think if the White House had said: “We offered Sestak a job, but we wanted him to make at least a two year commitment to the post. He said he would be unable to make that commitment so the offer was withdrawn.” Then the whole thing would have blown over very quickly.
May 28, 2010, 1:12 pmPeter says:
A silly law.
How do you prove purpose of the job offer? Circumstantial evidence?
An administration has so many jobs to hand out, it cant fill them all.
While the obvious purpose was to get him out of the race, I cant believe anyone would have been dumb enough to say if you take the job, you must drop your campaign.
And maybe I am wrong, but the law does not seem to target offering someone a job in exchange for refraining from political activity.
May 28, 2010, 1:12 pmDon de Drain says:
Anderson–
For what it’s worth, I agree with your interpretation of the law. But I also thought that Lori Drew did not commit any federal crimes. So what you and I think about the law doesn’t mean too much to a AUSA hell bent on pursuing an indictment. I don’t think an indictment will ever happen, however, regardless of the facts, for reasons previously stated.
May 28, 2010, 1:12 pmluagha says:
What seems transparent to me is the sudden appearance of Bill Clinton as the supposed bagman. What has Obama/Rahm been using Clinton for up to now? Jack nothing of this sort.
The hope being that it would somehow be too ‘embarassing’ to put a former president up for the violation of this law and so we’ll let them off scot free?
May 28, 2010, 1:17 pmSteve says:
The Sestak offer is clearly different. He alleges that there was actual contact with the administration, and a job was offered.
Do you think if there was no contact between the WH and Sestak, but David Axelrod said publicly “if he doesn’t run, he’ll be offered a job in the administration,” that would be different because there was no face-to-face job offer? I confess it doesn’t seem a lot different to me.
May 28, 2010, 1:20 pmRowerinVA says:
Peter, I partially agree and partially disagree. The law makes sense in most cases. Installing hacks in career jobs (“burrowing in” is the inside-the-beltway term for it) as political payback is and should be illegal. But installing hacks in White House political jobs is normal and expected.
Should there be a carve out for this particular context — if a White House wants to offer one of its own, high-level, clearly political jobs to someone for a political purpose, shouldn’t that be OK? I mean, really, aren’t such jobs always offered for a political purpose? Shouldn’t it really depend on what job is involved, not what was the degree of quid-pro-quo in the offer?
May 28, 2010, 1:23 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Oh my stars. You’re probably right. Especially this former president.
May 28, 2010, 1:23 pmkeypusher64 says:
One Senate seat is a very big deal. Not as important as the president, obviously, but more important than just about anyone else at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
If by a “scandal leading to the Oval Office” you are suggesting that this is going to actually threaten the president with impeachment, well, it won’t.
I can’t demand that people respond to my comments, but to paraphrase a question I asked earlier:
Suppose David Axelrod told Sestak he would be appointed Secretary of the Navy if he didn’t run in the Pennsylvania Senate race. Do you think that should be a crime?
May 28, 2010, 1:25 pmbailey says:
Great analogy, DL. Of course, you realize that the oil rig started its current drilling during the Obama Administration, right? As to Ambinder nonsense, Sestak’s explanation has already differed from what is in the Memo.
May 28, 2010, 1:29 pmNickM says:
It looks like a crime, but not much of a scandal. These sorts of offers occur frequently in politics, at all levels, from both sides. To avoid breaking the law, you just have to be careful enough not to bring up the elephant dancing in the room during the conversation. Even if you broke the law, if the person accepts the position offered, you’re probably not facing any trouble because they’ll keep their mouth shut.
I don’t know what was actually said here, but the official WH response is not looking too good.
Nick
May 28, 2010, 1:30 pmJohn425 says:
If you believe a Senatorial candidate would drop out of the race for an “uncompensated advisory position” then I have a bridge I’d like to sell you!
May 28, 2010, 1:36 pmNickM says:
Should be? I’m not sure. In the case of something that’s a political appointment or requires Senate confirmation, probably not IMO.
Of course, there are a lot of crimes that I don’t think should be crimes.
It’s not a very important legal question for conduct that has already occurred.
Nick
May 28, 2010, 1:37 pmSimply George says:
Can you say “Conspiracy”?
May 28, 2010, 1:38 pmmls says:
The WH explanation strikes me as noteworthy on two counts. First, it seems peculiar that anyone would think that Sestak would give up a Senate bid in exchange for some uncompensated position on some sort of presidential board. What kind of board could possibly have been of such interest?
Second, the memo explicitly states that Sestak could have continued to serve in the House while serving on this board. That means there was no legal or practical reason why he could not have continued to run for Senate and served on the board as well. Therefore, the WH must have anticipated an explicit quid pro quo. Were they going to write a contract? Come out publicly and say that Sestak agreed to drop his bid in exchange for the seat?
Weird.
May 28, 2010, 1:41 pmRPT says:
Don’t forget Obama’s 9/11, Obama’s Pearl Harbor, bla bla.
May 28, 2010, 1:44 pmRPT says:
Well, of course. That’s the point.
May 28, 2010, 1:47 pmKazinski says:
That might violate the NBA’s tampering rules, but I don’t think it would violate the law. I note that the Rollin’s “offer” doesn’t have a direct quote. He could have said something less direct, like “of course we would consider offering him a job if he was available.” Or something very explicit like “we want him out of the race and he can have any job he wants if he gets out.” But it is pretty hard to say an statement made to the press constitutes an offer, or any sort of a conspiracy to make and offer.
May 28, 2010, 1:50 pmKazinski says:
Congress did.
May 28, 2010, 1:53 pmAngus says:
Sestak says that the WH memo was correct. He was offered an unpaid position on an advisory board. As to why he would want it? It gives him more access to the President ear than if he ran for Senate and lost.
May 28, 2010, 1:56 pmzuch says:
No. That was Dubya. Like, on the leak of Plame’s NOC status.
Cheers,
May 28, 2010, 2:05 pmRPT says:
The focus on this reminds me of Rove’s set up of Richard Scrushy and Don Siegelman with the Alabama USA’s. It was a complete no harm, no foul, no crime scenario. While Seigelman is out on bail pending appeal, RS is doing time in Beaumont. This one is typical Rove.
May 28, 2010, 2:05 pmbailey says:
Except he said he was offered a job by someone in the White House, not an unpaid board position, Angus. You sound silly when you parrot this stuff. By the way, didn’t Clinton and Obama have lunch yesterday to get their stories straight on this?
May 28, 2010, 2:20 pmdave lloyd says:
May 28, 2010, 2:20 pmKazinski says:
Now it gets worse. They’ve got their stories straight, but it is a story so implausible that nobody will believe it. The press is going to smell blood, and Toomey is going to have a field day.
May 28, 2010, 2:21 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
ShelbyC,
He’s smarter than me wrt most things as well I’m sure, but not wrt the use of who vs. whom. You are correct.
I can’t believe that a VC commentariat full of people who grew up diagramming sentences, ferchrissake, didn’t leap on “He’s smarter than me.” That’s the sort of thing some grammarians take like a stick in the eye.
Enh. There are distinctions. People who throw “whom” into their writing without any real clue whether it’s the right word may be assumed (in the absence of more evidence) to be trying to show off. People who, when the person answering the doorbell asks “Who is it?,” reply “It is I” may safely be assumed to be graduate students parodying grammatical pedants. Actual people who speak like that in ordinary conversation are rarer than California condors.
I suppose I’m a grammar nerd (though I never was taught to diagram a sentence). I see “its”/”it’s” gotten wrong here all the time (and in the posts as well as the comments, which is dispiriting). In the Larger Scheme Of Things, where do misplaced apostrophes fall? Not that high.
But back when I was an editor … if I saw a misplaced apostrophe, I would’ve snuffed that m*thaf*cka out, without a second thought. Just sayin’ ;-)
May 28, 2010, 2:25 pmA.W. says:
Can i ask a dumb question.
Who cares if the position was paid or not. It was being offered in exchange, and thus it was considered a form of compensation. They didn’t want him to serve in this capacity unless he stayed in the house.
And i don’t see anything in that statutory language that requires it to be a paid position.
And of course the memo is nothing at all. its just “trust me its legal.” well, sorry, i don’t trust you Mr. White House counsel, so cite a precedent.
May 28, 2010, 2:27 pmBuckland says:
Hey Joe,
Look, I’m not saying you shouldn’t run against Arlen. But you know how things work here. In the administration we really need good people, people we can depend on when things get tough. Why just the other day the president and I were talking about how we need an experienced, smart guy in the Secretary of the Navy job.
Not that I can offer you such a plum job — that would be illegal. But just know that we take care of people who help us out. And a man with your background would undoubtedly rather have a challenging job such as Secretary of the Navy rather than 1 of a hundred senators (and that’s even if you win).
Just think about our conversation. We know how to help people who are dependable when we need them. You’ve had a nice career up to this point, be a shame if anything happened to it.
I’m sure you’ll do the right thing. After all, it’s the Chicago way.
May 28, 2010, 2:29 pmMAM says:
Definitely liked the candor shown in the memo regarding the political reasons behind seeking a position for Sestak. Quite refreshing.
May 28, 2010, 2:29 pmB.D. says:
“He’s smarter than me” is acceptable, Michelle. So is “he’s smarter than I (am).” The English language evolves.
May 28, 2010, 2:30 pmef says:
If Rep. Sestak differs in his recollection, then he will be convinced to not differ in his recollection.
Who cares if the position was paid or not? I would think it’s important for the “something of value” portion of the applicable laws. While I don’t think “value” necessarily needs to be monetary, it certainly leaves more room to argue if there is no paycheck involved.
May 28, 2010, 2:32 pmwfjag says:
But, the “new and improved Sestak explanation” now tracks the WH Memo.
Bailey, I’ll bet you questioned Jimmy Swaggart’s explanation(s), too.
May 28, 2010, 2:32 pmAnderson says:
So, Michelle, how about “none” — singular or plural? “None of us are going to the show” — sandpaper to your nerves?
It is to mine, to hell with what Fowler says.
May 28, 2010, 2:36 pmBenjamin Davis says:
Whomever? Whoever? Whatever!
May 28, 2010, 2:37 pm(Could not resist!)
Best,
Ben
bailey says:
You’re right, jag. I think I’ll credit the current innocent version of events hatched up 3 months after the fact following the Obama/Clinton lunch as opposed to what was said at the time. Then I’ll rename myself Angus and not wonder why such a simple explanation couldn’t have been offered months ago.
May 28, 2010, 2:42 pmA.W. says:
ef
> While I don’t think “value” necessarily needs to be monetary, it certainly leaves more room to argue if there is no paycheck involved.
Well, i agree that if he would have been pulling down a salary, it would be worse, and indeed it might argue for mitigating the sentence. but clearly they thought it had value, because they expected the offer to change his behaviorl.
May 28, 2010, 2:42 pmA.W. says:
the biggest confession that this is illegal, in my book, is their inability to cite a single precedent justifying it.
May 28, 2010, 2:43 pmAngus says:
Yawn. That barb fell short. Care to try again?
May 28, 2010, 2:59 pmmls says:
The problem for Sestak is that the current explanation is so innocent as to raise the question as to why he brought the subject up in the first place. He had certainly suggested, if he had not explicitly stated, that the WH was trying to buy him out of the race with the offer of an attractive job. But the current story doesn’t involve any kind of personal benefit to Sestak–just an appeal to his patriotism and desire to serve. So Sestak has to explain why he decided to go public with a misleading version that made it sound like he had nobly turned down an attempted bribe.
May 28, 2010, 3:04 pmAngus says:
This is just the latest invented outrageous outrage that Republicans can pretend to be outraged at. They’ll invent another one now that there is nothing more to this one.
May 28, 2010, 3:04 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
B.D., of course it’s “acceptable”; it’s what everyone naturally says. My point was only that it’s not the sort of thing that anyone (e.g. you, or ShelbyC echoing you) really ought to use in the course of chiding someone else over the “who/whom” distinction.
Anderson,
So, Michelle, how about “none” — singular or plural? “None of us are going to the show” — sandpaper to your nerves?
It is to mine, to hell with what Fowler says.
It isn’t to mine, but I think I would put that down to a year spent studying in England. Lots of things that we treat as singular nouns (or pronouns) here are plural in UK-speak. It took me rather a long time to get used the way British publications referred to, say, string quartets. It was always “the quartet play,” “the quartet were,” &c.
May 28, 2010, 3:05 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Michelle, when people call and ask for Laura, and I say, “This is she,” am I being a pedant?
: )
(“It is I” could be said by somebody who read a lot of Billy Goats Gruff to their toddlers the previous evening.”
May 28, 2010, 3:07 pmAngus says:
I got into an argument over the correct way to respond to this in grad school, so now when someone asks for me I simply say, “speaking.”
May 28, 2010, 3:09 pmShelbyC says:
Are you familiar with the history of that rule? It’s always sounded to my like hypercorrection.
May 28, 2010, 3:11 pmwfjag says:
Dang, bailey, do I have to explain everything? It’s all Malia’s fault.
Everytime the Prez started to work on the Sestak Memo, she’s pipe up “Daddy, Daddy, have you plugged the oil well yet?”, and he’d get distracted. You heard it yesterday. First thing in the morning when he’s trying to shave, and she’s in there bugging him about plugging the oil well. No doubt that when he tried to read her bed stories at night, she’d bug him about plugging the oil well. During the day, he’d say, “Hey, Malia, want to go outside and shoot a game of Horse with me?” and she’s ask about if he’d plugged the oil well yet. Finally, Barry and Billy had lunch yesterday, and Barry told Billy about why he couldn’t get his mind focused on writing that WH Memo on Sestak. Well, since Chelsea doesn’t live at home any more, Billy can focus his thoughts on important things, and so he whipped that memo right out. See, it’s all Malia’s fault. And, if it’s not her fault, then it’s George Bush’s fault. No doubt he’s been calling the WH every day and asking Malia if her Daddy’s got that oil well plugged yet? Bet that he’s been doing that since before Christmas. And, if it’s not his fault, then it’s Karl Rove’s fault. See, it’s somebody else’s fault.
So, stop asking questions and believe as you are told. Remember: “Dissent is the highest form of Sedition.”
May 28, 2010, 3:13 pmkeypusher64 says:
It appears that no one is willing to assert that Axelrod offering the Sectary of the Navy job to Sestak in exchange for him not running against Specter ought to be a crime.
Of course, I am not claiming that (i) any such thing actually happened (ii) that the hypothetical isn’t a crime now. But no one seems willing to contend that the laws the administration may have violated make any sense at all. Which is nice, I guess.
May 28, 2010, 3:14 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
We were taught “He is smarter than I [am smart]“. But nobody much says that.
Sometimes it’s appropriate to be informal. When the cat wants to go into the back yard, and I think I might as well take my coffee cup and go out with her, I’ll tell my husband, “Me and Molly are going outside.” “Molly and I” sounds stupidly stilted, for this particular Molly.
May 28, 2010, 3:16 pmAngus says:
Or you could keep your current name, bailey, and keep inventing stuff and live in your own separate reality where little starbursts shoot out from the screen when Sarah Palin winks.
May 28, 2010, 3:17 pmGarandFan says:
WHY did Sestak BLAB in the first place?
Chicago-style politics. Something Barry Obama could understand. Barry had PROMISED to back Specter. Sestak wanted the job. Barry PROMISED to campaign for Specter. So someone in the White House goofs big time, making an illegal offer. Sestaks response?
“Nice White House ya got here. A real shame anything happens to it. Why don’t you back off that “support Specter” thing and I’ll shut up.”
So Barry suddenly ‘forgets’ to campaign for Arlen. Arlen loses. Sestak wins.
BUT Sestak didn’t count on some people still asking him questions. He won. Now it was “live and let live time”. So Sestak goes “I’m an honorable man. Let others speak for what they did.” But no one is buying it. This is like a guy witnessing a murder and dialing 911. Cops arrive, victim is dead. The caller is the only one who can help. But the caller says “I am an honorable man. I dialed 911. I have nothing else to add.” Well the public is not buying it.
Now the cover up. And Sestak is being called LIAR! I thought Barry NEEDED every vote in the Senate. He’s got Specter pissed at him now and the question is will Arlen support Obama on anything until his term ends? He’s calling Sestak, POSSIBLE future senator a liar. Has Barry already written off a Sestak win in November? If so, then he’ll suffer no repercussions for the name calling.
The Clinton’s HATE Obama. He’s the reason Hillary! is not in the White House with the First Husband. What do they get? Possibly that huge campaign debt finally “retired”? Plus a brief moment back in the lime-light for Bill?
May 28, 2010, 3:17 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
It makes sense to me. One, I don’t want my tax dollars to go toward either party, but especially the one I didn’t vote for, securing their power; and two, I’d rather the Secretary of the Navy be picked for his qualifications, for the good of the country.
May 28, 2010, 3:18 pmAnderson says:
a year spent studying in England
Why can’t the English, etc.
They also have no conscience at all re: comma splices.
The English have ceased to be any reliable authority on English!
May 28, 2010, 3:19 pmA.W. says:
I don’t read angus as necessarily parroting the white house. The fact is in ordinary parlance, an unpaid advisory position can be called a job.
And i don’t think its a defense, either. As Angus himself states, there is value in the position, and the statute talks about offering a position “in consideration of” political activity. Consideration can be anything of value.
Also i will note that the fact that bill clinton was the direct offeror doesn’t exhonerate whoever sent bill. bill clinton would be tagged as “directly” offering, and whoever sent him would be tagged as “indirectly” offering. it just means our former president is in trouble again.
And it makes sense. Otherwise Obama can just send his wife to offer the job, and he is insulated.
barring some creative and surprising interpretation of the statute, I would say they just confessed to a crime. And if Obama knew about it, ordinarily i would say impeach him, except…
Except the reality is that there is no way in hell they will impeach the first black president of the US, at least not without doing something much worse than this. It fits in with my thoughts, here. http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/04/jackie-robinson-theory-of-obama.html
May 28, 2010, 3:20 pmAnderson says:
I’d rather the Secretary of the Navy be picked for his qualifications
And I would rather see international disputes solved by fluffy-bunny races than by an Army or Navy. But that would be naive.
May 28, 2010, 3:20 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Anderson, I know, but when you see stuff happen right in front of you, if you don’t complain, you deserve everything you get. I’d like to at least pretend to have some standards.
May 28, 2010, 3:22 pmDonP. says:
Of course they do.
I bleed Black and White. I’m old enough to have gone to games in both 1959 and 2005 and watched Al Lopez and Ozzie lead them to championship seasons. Nobody is alive that recalls the last Cubs Championship. When Ernie said “Let’s Play Two” he wasn’t referring to centuries between wins.
But the “not serious” comment assumes facts not in evidence: e.g. that the President is actually a White Sox fan beyond having a cap that some one gave him.
Anyone that can’t name a single player, refers to Comiskey Park as “Kaminsky Field”, doesn’t know who “The Old Roman” was, never watched Wilbur Wood painfully pitch a game, or acknowledge the true historical significance of Smead Jolley (my late FIL all time favorite player) has no business criticizing the overpriced, open air singles bar that is Wrigley Field.
Rahm, Axelrod and the majority of that crew (as well as my two misguided sisters) would not be caught dead or alive mingling with White Sox fans like me, my fireman uncles and fireman son in law at the churros stand. They enjoy Wrigley Field, we enjoy baseball.
IMNSHO the whole Sox fan thing is all part of the thinly painted populist backdrop.
May 28, 2010, 3:32 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Laura(southernxyl),
Michelle, when people call and ask for Laura, and I say, “This is she,” am I being a pedant?
No; you’re being charming. At least I hope so, because that’s how I answer the phone myself. (I picked it up decades ago from a boy I was smitten with. He’d answer the phone, I’d ask for him by name, and he’d reply “This is he speaking.” It was also about that time that I started putting cross-strokes through my 7′s and my z’s, once I saw how he drew those figures in his letters to me. Hey, I was 13, and completely, totally, no possibility of error obsessed. And I still write that way; young habits die hard.)
Angus,
I got into an argument over the correct way to respond to this in grad school, so now when someone asks for me I simply say, “speaking.”
Which is as good as anything; I use it on occasion, too. (Generally it’s “Hi, ____” for anyone I know; “This is she” for anyone not obviously a telemarketer; and “Speaking” for the remnant.)
ShelbyC,
Are you familiar with the history of that rule? It’s always sounded to my like hypercorrection.
Oh, the “who/whom” business is absolutely hypercorrection. Kids have been told off so often for using “who” where there should be “whom” that they grow up thinking that “when in doubt, go with ‘whom’.”
But “smarter than [I/me]” seems to me perfectly sensible. It’s shorthand, yes, for “smarter than [I/me] am”? Only one of those two is plausible.
May 28, 2010, 3:32 pmkeypusher64 says:
But that party won, which gives them the right to, among other things, pick the Secretary of the Navy; and they are likely going to pick a Democrat (though they did keep Gates at SecDef), even if it isn’t Sestak. As for being picked for the good of the country, Sestak is a former admiral and a member of congress, which suggests to me that he is up to the demands of the job, whatever they are. But leave that aside. Are you saying that if the selection of the Secretary of the Navy is not made on pure merit, but involves political considerations, that ought to be a criminal offense?
May 28, 2010, 3:32 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Sure. But there’s a difference between picking a Democrat because you are one, and picking a Democrat because you are manipulating a Senate race to try to get a Democrat returned to the Senate and keep your power base there. You see that, don’t you?
I’m relieved.
See above.
May 28, 2010, 3:37 pmPatrick Glenn says:
It was a good choice of fall guy because Bill Clinton has impeachable credentials.
May 28, 2010, 3:39 pmRPT says:
I like this one; all conduct is illegal unless there is a precedent which makes it legal. Is this a libertarian position?
May 28, 2010, 3:40 pmNot Eligible Yet for SecNav says:
10 U.S.C. § 5013(a)(2):
May 28, 2010, 3:40 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Anderson,
They [the English] also have no conscience at all re: comma splices.
Damn. I didn’t know what you were talking about until I Googled it, but you’re quite right. And to think that all these years I was putting it down to bad copy-editing.
I know I over-use semicolons, but they are really, really helpful in clarifying complicated sentences.
May 28, 2010, 3:41 pmmls says:
I don’t think that this ought to be a crime. But I am not willing to go so far as to say there would be nothing wrong with it. Generally speaking, the Framers were against the executive using the promise of federal jobs to influence Members of Congress, although at the end of the day they prohibited only a small subset of such activity (a prohibition that this administration and most of its recent predecessors have ignored).
From the standpoint of a Pennslyvania voter, the Axelrod would be (1) reducing her choice of candidates, (2) using a federal position paid for with her tax dollars to do so, and (3) attempting to undermine Specter’s independence, such as it is, by making him indebted to Obama. So I would say that there is something wrong with that.
May 28, 2010, 3:44 pmAngus says:
Unlike the jobs Reagan and Bush offered to people to get them to drop out of races?
May 28, 2010, 3:46 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Is this a drive-by, or can you back it up?
May 28, 2010, 3:47 pmkeypusher64 says:
Trying to get a particular individual selected as your party’s nominee for a Senate seat is “manipulation”? Are you serious?
May 28, 2010, 3:49 pmnibbles says:
I’ll assert that.
And in case anyone from the White House is reading this thread – I’m running for a local elected position and would gladly drop out in return for government largess. My price is negotiable.
I’m also willing to do other favors – landscaping, housecleaning, daycare etc. – for government officials in return for government jobs, cash, no-bid contracts, etc.
May 28, 2010, 3:50 pmWillys says:
And the Fox just keeps on tickin’…
May 28, 2010, 3:52 pmShelbyC says:
Er, doesn’t it depend on how you do it?
May 28, 2010, 3:52 pmkeypusher64 says:
Look, I think Axelrod’s alleged action (which I stress is not Axelrod’s action, but my hypothetical) should be open to criticism through the political process. Toomey should be able to make all the hay he can out of it, and if Sestak wants to use it to show the voters of Pennsylvania that he is not “the administration’s man” that’s great. I just don’t think it should be subject to criminal sanction.
May 28, 2010, 3:54 pmkeypusher64 says:
It does. My last post was not well put. If the administration had tried to keep Sestak out of the race by offering him a suitcase full of cash that would be a crime. But no one has alleged that as far as I know.
May 28, 2010, 3:58 pmA.W. says:
RPT
> I like this one; all conduct is illegal unless there is a precedent which makes it legal. Is this a libertarian position?
You are taking me out of context. The plain language of the statute says it is illegal. It is offering a position in consideration of political activity. It fits within the literal language of the statute. But they are claiming that the position has to be a paid position, even though the statute doesn’t say that.
So the only hope they have is some precedent somewhere saying that despite the statute’s plain intention to include all positions, indeed all consideration, whether in money or power or prestige, that some court reads into the statute that only paid positions count.
But in the absense of any precedent supporting them, the plain language rules and they have confessed to a crime.
May 28, 2010, 3:58 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
IMO, it amounts to the same thing.
May 28, 2010, 4:01 pmA.W. says:
RPT
i mean let me quote the white house’s defense:
> Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified. The advisory positions discussed with Congressman Sestak, while important to the work of the Administration, would have been uncompensated.
> White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak. The White House Chief of Staff enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board. Congressman Sestak declined the suggested alternatives, remaining committed to his Senate candidacy.
This is like a man accused of robbing a house at a specific time saying, “I’m innocent. At that time I was busy robbing another persons house. Now will you let me go.” Maybe he is telling the truth, maybe he is not, but either way he is a criminal and he is not going to go free.
So a crime has been committed. Now the only question is what did Obama know and when did he know it.
I would normally say this was potentially impeachable, but as a practical reality its not happening.
May 28, 2010, 4:01 pmAngus says:
Previous offers of jobs-for-election drop outs:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/27/sestak-scandal-is-busines_n_592012.html
May 28, 2010, 4:05 pmShelbyC says:
Well, IIRC who/whom has a historical basis, from the OE noninitive/accusitive/dative pronouns. But I don’t know if “smarter than I” comes from actually historical usage, or from a rule that somebody invented, like double negatives or not ending sentences with prepositions. French, for example, has a reflexive pronoun construction, you’d say “plus intelligent que moi” not “plus intelligent que je”. (Although I think you can say something like “plus intelligent que je ne le suis.”)
May 28, 2010, 4:06 pmDon de Drain says:
“Stick close to your desks, and never go to sea,
And you ALL may be rulers of the Queen’s Navy”
W.S. Gilbert
May 28, 2010, 4:07 pmA.W. says:
Shorter Angus: everyone else is doing it!
Angus’ mom: and if everyone jumped off the brooklyn bridge would you do that too?
the law is the law, angus and saying X did it, too, doesn’t make it right.
If reagan or bush did it (big if, i mean you are citing huffpo as your source, you know) then yes, they should have been punished. and the fact they got away with it is not a legal precedent. a legal precedent can only be created by a court decision.
May 28, 2010, 4:11 pmtheobromophile says:
Note to self: go to Wrigley soon.
Laura’s point does not go that far. First, that’s a bit like asking if a critic of Blagovich’s behaviour is against governors using “economic considerations” when considering a replacement nominee. Moreover, we all recognise that there are moral and legal limits to the use of political power, which is derived from the people and is not an absolute right given to politicians. Likewise, political positions are not there to be used as horse-trading favours, but are there for the good of the people.
May 28, 2010, 4:12 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Angus, your linked article starts out:
OK.
May 28, 2010, 4:14 pmkeypusher64 says:
Nice. We all should have thought of that.
May 28, 2010, 4:15 pmA.W. says:
And Angus, even if other presidents got away with it (big if, since your source is the huffington post, you know), that isn’t a precedent. precedents comes from the courts.
Besides didn’t they say something about being the most ethical administration evah?
May 28, 2010, 4:15 pmMark Field says:
I’ve gotta say, the grammar discussion in this thread is a lot more interesting and relevant to the real world than the rest of it.
May 28, 2010, 4:16 pmMark Field says:
Yossarian (paraphrased): Then I’d certainly be a damned fool to do anything else.
May 28, 2010, 4:20 pmTexEd says:
I’m still looking for Specter to step forward to pee in this pool to try and knock Sestak off the ballot. Think back. I do not remember the date that Specter tergiversated, but, up ’til 1/19/10, Specter was the 60th vote. Obama backed him even though his poll numbers were down. Imagine the conversations, especially before the Mass. special election. Specter MUST have badgered Obama and the White House staff, begging for help. At some point, Specter had to have been told that Obama and Clinton were trying to buy Sestak off. Specter had to have been told something. As always, an honest media would have asked Specter what he knew and when did he learn it. Specter has nothing to lose. Look to him for a dramatic statement.
May 28, 2010, 4:24 pmPerseus says:
You had better hope that the fluffy-bunny races are not like the Rabbit of Caerbannog.
May 28, 2010, 4:27 pmNoonan says:
I think he’s being sarcastic. At least I hope he is…
May 28, 2010, 4:32 pmMalvolio says:
Even if he can. Even if he has video of Reagan smothering a political opponent with a pillow, it’s still a stupid argument. No one is claiming that Rahm Emanuel is the first person in history to commit a crime, or even this crime; some people claim (or at least suspect) that Rahm Emanuel did commit a crime.
Tu quoque is not a defense in law.
May 28, 2010, 4:37 pmA.W. says:
Tex ed: how would specter be able to knock out sestak? best he could do is run as an independant, but its pretty clear that neither party likes him these days.
May 28, 2010, 4:42 pmjosh says:
Ditto Mark Field at 4:16 pm. I like the grammar discussion the bestest. [Let's get real nerdy and start discussing the "which/that" and "lay/lie" distinctions!]
May 28, 2010, 4:44 pmMike says:
Either way, no matter how you look at it, they (Emmanuel, Clinton and …) are all guilty of running lowdown, underhanded, dirty politics and the American people should be given the benefit of seeing this disgusting issue investigated as well as seeing everyone involved testify under oath.
May 28, 2010, 4:45 pmAnonsters says:
It’s a feature of collective nouns, not a bug.
May 28, 2010, 4:46 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Lay/lie is easy. You can lie down, or you can lay an object down. Also, lay is past tense of lie. Laid is past tense of lay. I lay my head on my pillow when I lie down. Yesterday I laid my head on my pillow when I lay down.
May 28, 2010, 4:48 pmChris Bell says:
Earlier in this thread I argued that it’s NOT a crime, even if that is exactly what happened. No one ever responded to that.
This whole thread has assumed that a direct quid-pro-quo (drop out in exchange for job) would be a crime, the only question is what was actually said. That’s a very big assumption, IMHO.
May 28, 2010, 4:56 pmA.W. says:
Chis
Here’s the white house memo on the topic:
That is a confession to a violation of 18 usc 600 plain and simple. unless the courts have mangled the plain language of the statute, a crime has been committed, by bubba and rahm. the only question was, was either man naked when he did it? j/k
May 28, 2010, 5:06 pmSteve says:
If reagan or bush did it (big if, i mean you are citing huffpo as your source, you know) then yes, they should have been punished.
Right, and of course, you would have been in favor of punishing them at the time. Of course you would have been. Of course.
Now, let’s take a look at your claim that the White House “admitted” to a crime.
Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified.
Read that again. It does not describe a quid pro quo. It merely describes a political motivation. The statute criminalizes certain exchanges, but does not criminalize mere motivation.
If President Obama offers Scott Brown an administration job, knowing full well that he is completely unqualified and that the only reason he is doing so is to open up a Senate seat for a Democrat, is that a crime? Answer: No. Although maybe you want to make the case that it is, I dunno.
The “admission” you’re looking for is not there.
May 28, 2010, 5:08 pmChris Bell says:
A.W.
No, it’s not. Read the statute again.
May 28, 2010, 5:16 pmrmd says:
I guess so; it sure as heck wasn’t created intelligently.
P.S. I love thread drift.
P.P.S. Extra points to B. D. for placing terminal punctuation inside the quotation marks.
May 28, 2010, 5:16 pmA.W. says:
Steve
Almost any confession can sound innocent if you selectively quote from it.
And no, the fact he was qualified for the position is not a defense. Because they were not going to give him that position unless he dropped out of the senate race. if he is the best candidate, they should have wanted him regardless.
Seriously, if a partner in a law firm says to a female applicant, “i am sure you would make a great lawyer, you are really well qualified, but i won’t hire you unless you give me a beej” would you say that isn’t quid pro quo sexual harrassment? same principle. imagine they said to him, “you would be great in this job, but we won’t give it to you unless you drop out of the senate race.” same difference.
the fact is unless you can cite a court case mangling the plain language of the statute, this is a crime. and your ad hominem hallucination that i would be a hypocritedoesn’t change that fact. You just demonstrate to us how completely partisan you are that you can’t imagine a person evaluating the matter neutrally.
May 28, 2010, 5:18 pmRPT says:
Absolutely right. The government should stop in its tracks to deal with this extremely pressing issue!
May 28, 2010, 5:22 pmA.W. says:
Chris, well let’s see here, the statute says, in relevant part:
> Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any … position … to any person… in connection with any primary election… [shall be punished, etc.]
So explain to me how they didn’t do that. Clinton promised it, so that is directly from clinton and indirectly from Rahm. its a position. its offered in connection with any primary election. so what’s the problem. make your argument.
Because to me its a slam dunk.
May 28, 2010, 5:23 pmkeypusher64 says:
So leaving aside whether Reagan or Bush should have been prosecuted, does anyone know why they weren’t, or why this was never an issue before (as far as I know)?
Apparently 18 U.S.C. 600 was enacted in 1972. I used to think Richard Nixon was OK, but stuff like this is pretty disheartening.
May 28, 2010, 5:25 pmHouston Lawyer says:
I would like to know how many people didn’t run for office this year because the White House bribed them out of it. Sestak just showed the bad judgment of complaining about it.
May 28, 2010, 5:26 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Anonsters,
It’s a feature of collective nouns, not a bug.
No, it’s neither a bug nor a feature, just a difference in praxis. In American English, a string quartet is singular. In British English, it’s plural. (The Brits follow this practice for larger ensembles, too; orchestras and choirs usually, though not always, take the plural if the writer is talking about the performers as a group — “[insert orchestra name here] were superb,” “[insert choir name here] were consistently below pitch,” &c.)
May 28, 2010, 5:28 pmChris Bell says:
A.W.,
“in connection with any primary election” doesn’t stand alone, it modifies the phrase before it. (Notice that “in connection with” appears earlier too.)
The correct way to read the statute is:
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any … position … to any person as consideration … for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate … in connection with any primary election [shall be punished]
So here are some things that the statute prohibits:
- “I’ll give you this federal job if you promise to vote Democrat in the 2010 election.”
- “I could give you this federal job, but only if you make a $500 donation to Rand Paul’s campaign first.”
(I used actual cases to get my two examples.)
Now you can argue that not running for office is a “political activity,” but words are normally read in context of the words around them (in this case, ‘support of or opposition to’). The cases bear this out. So “political activity” probably means things like campaigning, raising money, donating money, etc. The White House didn’t ask Sestak to do anything like that.
So I doubt that the law was broken, even if there had been an explicit quid pro quo. The long history of offering jobs to political rivals helps confirm this.
May 28, 2010, 5:43 pmRPT says:
How about Evan Bayh, who didn’t even get the NCAA job, Sarah Palin, John Ensign, Tom Delay, Bennett from Utah, the abstinent Congressman from Indiana, Mark Sanford, etc. How do you plan to answer your question?
May 28, 2010, 5:44 pmt1 says:
This post would be yet another example in which the analysis of a VC poster is pretty much identical to a Fox News talking point that has been circulating for a couple of days.
I suppose both might have arrived at the truth independently. Or perhaps there is something else at work here.
May 28, 2010, 5:46 pmA.W. says:
> Now you can argue that not running for office is a “political activity,” but words are normally read in context of the words around them (in this case, ‘support of or opposition to’).
No, actually political activity would be read in that context in a sort of expressio unious. your reading would eliminate the need for the word “or.”
Sorry, you have a confession of a violation of law. And i am not the only one who thinks so. http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/05/sestak-rahm-bubba.html
But i love how you say that you can’t buy a vote, but you can buy out a potential candidate.
May 28, 2010, 5:48 pmSteve says:
Seriously, if a partner in a law firm says to a female applicant, “i am sure you would make a great lawyer, you are really well qualified, but i won’t hire you unless you give me a beej” would you say that isn’t quid pro quo sexual harrassment? same principle.
Same principle, other than the fact that they didn’t say “I won’t hire you unless you drop out of the Senate race.” You are hallucinating the notion that they confessed to saying so.
The fact that taking the job would have necessarily precluded him from doing something else, and that the White House would be happy that he wasn’t doing that something else, does not make it a quid pro quo. You’re seeking to criminalize the mere fact of having a motivation.
I think it’s a little cool that the White House freely admitted to the political motivation. It makes their statement ring a lot more true than Sestak’s Romneyesque “Gosh, I said no because I just care so much about helping working families.” But that’s rather beside the point.
Because they were not going to give him that position unless he dropped out of the senate race. if he is the best candidate, they should have wanted him regardless.
I hope you realize, they weren’t going to give Janet Napolitano the Homeland Security job unless she resigned as Governor of Arizona. Wow, another felony!
the biggest confession that this is illegal, in my book, is their inability to cite a single precedent justifying it.
This is the comic part. Apparently, until someone is prosecuted under this ludicrous theory of liability and a court rejects it, there’s no precedent and therefore it must be a valid theory.
Contrary to your assumption, the fact that a certain type of conduct takes place all the time and is never considered to be criminal is, in fact, evidence that it’s not actually criminal. If you think it contravenes the plain language of a statute, even though it happens all the time and numerous prosecutors who are well-qualified to read statutes never prosecute anyone for it, then the odds are that you’re misinterpreting the so-called plain language.
May 28, 2010, 5:58 pmAnonsters says:
Yes, but not all collective nouns are always treated as singular in Am. Eng.
May 28, 2010, 6:00 pmRPT says:
If I were Adler, I’d rather have people talking about this diversion than Rand Paul’s comment on RT.com about his desire to abolish part of the 14th amendment and station black helicopters at regular intervals along the border.
“I recently have been talking more about satellite observation. They say you can sit in front of the store here and a satellite can read the headline on your newspaper. So I think you could also monitor your border with satellites, and then you just have to have some means of intercepting people who come in illegally. You could have helicopters stations positioned every couple of hundred miles. . .
We’re the only country I know of that allows people to come in illegally have a baby and then that baby becomes a citizen. And I think that should stop also.”
Classic…..
May 28, 2010, 6:01 pmAngus says:
#1. I saw your comment on that guy’s website. Would you like some cheese with your whine?
May 28, 2010, 6:13 pm#2. Any “legal analysis” that includes the terms “Bubba” and “Clintonian” is a joke, which is fitting given the contents of your posts in this thread. Care to show us anyone convicted of a crime for offering a person an unpaid position in return for not running for office?
TaxNerd says:
While more information might prove otherwise, the memo does not demostrate a violation. Like Steve points out, the motivation itself doesn’t matter; there has to be a promise. The memo does not prove that such a promise was made. At some point enough winks and nods will reveal an indirect promise, but the memo does not contain enough information to prove that it occured in this situation.
I think that the better arguement is that inducing someone to drop out is not the “political activity” or “support or opposition” that you are prohibited from rewarding. I guess dropping out could be support, but I think that’s a reach. It might be political activity, but I wouldn’t instinctively read that to include dropping out of a race.
On the other hand, the argument that everyone is doing it is misplaced. Especially when you cite the Huffington Post as evidence. Half of the article is speculation, and the other half deals with positions, like a spot as VP on the national ticket, that are not provided for by act of congress.
May 28, 2010, 6:22 pmzuch says:
Ummm, don’t you have that backwards?
This really misconstrues Nixon’s predicament (and implies parallels that simply don’t exist).
Nixon’s situation was that he didn’t commit the ‘signature’ crime … but that the coverup was done by various sleazy and downright illegal means, such as suggestions to assassinate journalists by his buddies in the CREEP/G. Gordon Liddy (current Republican talk radio star for some reason) camp, break-ins, threats, use of the CIA and IRS, anonanon….
If the event is not illegal, then coverups don’t run the same risk of illegality (particularly when the “coverup” is just not talking about it). And if the coverup is not illegal, WFTC?!?!?
Cheers,
May 28, 2010, 6:27 pmSteve says:
On the other hand, the argument that everyone is doing it is misplaced. Especially when you cite the Huffington Post as evidence.
If there’s a story in the Weekly World News saying it’s entirely common to persuade someone to run for office by promising them a job if they run and lose, it’s still 100% true notwithstanding the source.
May 28, 2010, 6:28 pmmls says:
I am still curious as to what presidential boards a sitting member of Congress can be appointed to. So far no one has mentioned a specific board, though Sestak said it was something to do with defense or intelligence.
May 28, 2010, 6:30 pmTaxNerd says:
Chris Bell beat me to the point.
May 28, 2010, 6:32 pmPlugInMonster says:
We can hope.
May 28, 2010, 6:42 pmTaxNerd says:
But the idea that it is entirely common to persuade someone to run for office by promising a job isn’t completely on point, regardless of of how well supported it is. Congress has seen fit to outlaw such promises in one area, where they have created or provided for the office. Most of the examples cited in the HuffPo article are jobs that Congress doesn’t provide for, such as VP. I’m not sure if jobs at the UN are in any way provided for by Congress. The Supreme Court spot raises an interesting question because the Court itself is provided for by the Constitution, while the number of judges and there salaries are provided by Congress. If your more general point is that law prohibits things that it shouldn’t, you may have a point.
May 28, 2010, 6:47 pmShelbyC says:
Aren’t you lawyers supposed to know about this stuff? :-).
May 28, 2010, 6:58 pmSteve says:
Congress has seen fit to outlaw such promises in one area, where they have created or provided for the office. Most of the examples cited in the HuffPo article are jobs that Congress doesn’t provide for, such as VP.
It may be clearer to you than to me what “created or provided for” means. Congress doesn’t create the VP’s job, obviously, but they do provide his salary. The vast majority of government jobs are created by Congress in one way or another, and certainly it’s Congress that provides the money for their salaries.
But getting back to the present case, is an unpaid advisory position “created or provided for” by Congress? Maybe we can’t know without knowing the precise job, but I’d be pretty surprised if the President needs Congress’ permission to make someone an unpaid advisor. Surely Congress’ power over the Executive Branch is not so substantial that they can tell the President, “You’re not allowed to receive advice from that person unless we authorize it.” By the same token, the idea that Congress has the power to criminalize the President naming someone as an unpaid advisor is somewhat mind-boggling.
May 28, 2010, 7:00 pmTaxNerd says:
I thought the same way at first, but the phrase says “for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party.” If you read “political activity” with reference to “support”, it would be redundant. All of the examples of politcal activity you cite could also fit under the “support of or opposition to” prohibition. The problem with either line of thinking is that it reads “political activity” out of the statute; either it means the same thing as “support of or opposition to”, in which case it has no independant meaning, or it doesn’t, in which case its difficult to imagine political activity that does not amount to support or opposition. In any event, I agree that dropping out of a race probably isn’t covered.
May 28, 2010, 7:05 pmShelbyC says:
And of course, the VP job can’t be offered, it’s an elected position.
May 28, 2010, 7:06 pmTaxNerd says:
Actually, it’s not that clear now that you mention it. You can apply my point about the Supreme Court to the VP. Even there is a distinction in that Congress actually creates each judgeship, it may not matter.
As to your second point, off the top of my head I would think that Congress could “create” an unpaid position and may even “provide” for it (i.e. an office, a parking space, an inspirational poster with a trite discussion of the word success, etc.). I think you raise a solid point as to the possibilty that Congress may have overstepped its bounds; however, I also think that you have read the statute to be more intrusive than it is. The President could get advice from anyone and appoint them to a position for any reason without violating the statute if Congress didn’t create or provide for the position. Even in cases where the position is paid for and created by Congress, I think it’s a reach to say that the President is required by to get Congress’s “permission”. Being prohibited from making an appointment for a particular reason isn’t the same thing as getting permission.
On a more general note, I’m open to the idea that appointments such as this ought to be punished, if at all, at the ballot box rather than in a court of law.
P.S. On reading your post again, I couldn’t decide if you were complaining about the absurb results of the statute or prehaps what you believed my read of it would be. If the later, feel free to ingore most of what I wrote.
May 28, 2010, 7:37 pmzuch says:
From the Cillizza article:
… a sign of how well the RW “spins” the morons in the media and the rubes that watch the likes of FauxSnooze (a/k/a “the propaganda arm of the GOP”).
Why such an offer, even if true and even if illegal, would redound to the detriment of Sestak, who obviously turned down any such offer, is beyond me.
That it’s a “regular fixture on cable news chat shows” is only true if you think that “cable news chat shows” means FauxSnooze, who’s on this 24X7 like flies on scat.
Another Republican “scandal” … and a good indication why it’s imperative that we keep these bozos as far from the levers of government as possible.
Speaking of handing sh*te out like candy for political gain, how many people here screamed bloody murder when Tommy Franks, J. Paul Bremer, and George Tenet got Preznitential Medals of Freedom for
their incomparable efforts in the Iraq warbeing good yes-boys for Dubya, Ctheney, et al. and then SingTFU about this when things blew up?Cheers,
May 28, 2010, 7:41 pmTaxNerd says:
It doesn’t have to be offered, just promised. This raises the question of whether you can get in trouble for promising things you can’t actually provide.
May 28, 2010, 7:43 pmzuch says:
Democrats don’t try to manufacture “crimes” (can you say “Monicagate”?) out of thin air.
Cheers,
May 28, 2010, 7:47 pmTaxNerd says:
I actually agree with this. There was some talk that Sestak would be guilty of some ethical violation for not disclosing the offer if the offer was criminal. However, unless the ethics rules he is under are vastly different than others, there would only be a violation if he had actual knowledge that the offer was illegal.
The rest of your post I could do without.
May 28, 2010, 7:47 pmShelbyC says:
Thin air?!? Then why’d he get disbarred? You can argue about whether or not impeachment was the right response, but it’s hard to argue against the fact that there’s strong evidence that the man perjured himself.
May 28, 2010, 7:50 pmzuch says:
Oh, yes. We can get Rush Limbaugh’s exculpatory explanation for his seemingly bizarre behaviour easily if we just put together the pieces.
Cheers,
May 28, 2010, 8:09 pmzuch says:
That’s the plan, baby, that’s the plan!!! The RW Mighty Wurlitzer is not seriously thinking this will ever amount to anything from a legal perspective; instead they’re running it 24X7 because that’s what they do: Fling scat at the wall all day long and hope that some of it will stick; the rubes will listen to them and think the Demorcats are dirty and not vote for them.
Cheers,
May 28, 2010, 8:17 pmzuch says:
LOL! A “promise” (as “consideration”) is not an “offer”. Right.
Cheers,
May 28, 2010, 8:21 pmzuch says:
Because all the Democrats on the Ark. committee recused themselves, and all the Republicans were foamers. Because, if it comes right down to it, you could probably sanction pretty much any lawyer you set your sights on by applying MRPC (and ArkRPC) Rule 8.49(c) [which is what they cited Clinton for] literally and as strictly as possible. (Note that MRPC Rule 8.4(b> is the one that involves criminal behaviour; something the Republicans on the Ark. committee didn’t bother to cite for some reason.) If they fib to their wife, or don’t return home when they said they would, they’re outta there….
Cheers,
May 28, 2010, 8:29 pmzuch says:
Not at all. What’s hard to argue with is that in all the hoopla, the Republicans left out an essential element (see U.S. v. Gaudin) of the crime of perjury (18 USC § 1621 et seq.) in all their made-up ‘charges’ … for some reason. I’d note that proving another element, that the affiant believed in the falsity of what they said, is also not in the least obvious.
Cheers,
May 28, 2010, 8:33 pmShelbyC says:
Well, if you believe Monica’s version of events (which you probably should) he lied before the grand jury where the facts certainly were material. And IIRC they were fould relevant to the civil case.
May 28, 2010, 8:43 pmTaxNerd says:
You say that as if every word in the statute is defined in the common law contractual sense. They aren’t.
May 28, 2010, 8:46 pmA.W. says:
Steve
> The fact that taking the job would have necessarily precluded him from doing something else.
So he could continue to be a representative and do this other job, but he couldn’t be a senator and do it. Care to cite the rule on that?
> You are hallucinating the notion that they confessed to saying so.
Yeah where would I get that idea… “Congressman Sestak declined the suggested alternatives, remaining committed to his Senate candidacy.”
> Apparently, until someone is prosecuted under this ludicrous theory of liability and a court rejects it
You mean the ludicrous theory that the statute means what it says. Okay.
> Contrary to your assumption, the fact that a certain type of conduct takes place all the time and is never considered to be criminal is, in fact, evidence that it’s not actually criminal.
Yeah, try that defense when the cop pulls you over for speeding.
> If you think it contravenes the plain language of a statute, even though it happens all the time
Also, of course we assume it goes on, but how often are they caught on tape doing it?
Col. Angus
> #1. I saw your comment on that guy’s website.
Wow, that is not at all stalky.
> Any “legal analysis” that includes the terms “Bubba” and “Clintonian” is a joke
Yeah he’s only a law professor, but if he has any lightheartedness you can dismiss everything he says.
May 28, 2010, 9:21 pmAngus says:
‘
The problem is, A.W., that the statute doesn’t say what you think it says. There are multiple ways that the statute does not apply to the situation, but at essence I can see that what the statute says and what the administration did don’t really matter much in your mind: if it wasn’t this excuse for brainless Obama-bashing, it would be some other trumped-up excuse.
Stalky? You linked to a very short and stupid blog piece, there are only two comments of which yours is the first, and it’s you complaining that some guy who has never heard of you is stealing your glory instead of praising you for being the first one in the entire world to find out the “truth” about the Sestak offer. Delusional.
May 28, 2010, 10:00 pmWhy do Democrats tell so many lies? - Page 6 - TeakDoor.com - The Thailand Forum says:
[...] [...]
May 28, 2010, 11:03 pmEli Rabett says:
It’s time to impeach Dick Cheney.
May 28, 2010, 11:44 pmGuest12345 says:
Well, if not buying health insurance is commerce…
May 29, 2010, 1:04 amSAT Lawyer says:
The White House and Sestak have concocted a cover story that almost works. The obvious intent here is to duck the offense criminalized in 18 U.S.C. § 600:
There’s a single key phrase in that statute which can take the very same act from one which is illegal to one which is not. And it may not stand out at first blush.
That phrase? “Act of Congress.”
The suggestion in the Kane interview was the the high ranking job that Sestak admitted to being offered by the White House was Secretary of the Navy. After Sestak dropped the job offer bombshell, Kane asked him, point blank, if the job was Secretary of the Navy. Sestak’s response? A categorical denial? Nope. A no comment.
Now, the White House’s lawyers know that one job that can’t have been offered to Sestak, given the above statute, is Secretary of the Navy. Why? Because that post was provided for by an Act of Congress.
So, it’s gotta be a position not created by an Act of Congress. What does that leave? Think, think, think. Ah, yes, Executive Advisory Boards. Jackpot! The excuse is ready. Cue White House Counsel Robert Bauer:
Does that work? Does that solve the “Act of Congress” problem, transforming otherwise illegal conduct into legal horse-trading? Yes, it does.
There were two such Advisory Boards in existence at the time that Sestak was offered a job for backing off his challenge to Specter: the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board and the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board and Intelligence Oversight Board. Both Advisory Boards were created by Executive Order, rather than an Act of Congress. The President’s Intelligence Advisory Board dates back to President Eisenhower. The President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board was created by President Obama. Ding, ding, ding: we have a winner.
Only one minor problem. The White House tripped itself up with another lie. What was the objective of the offer? How were they going to entice Sestak to give up a potential seat in the Senate for an unpaid post on a mere Advisory Board? Here’s how (emphasis added):
So significant, this point, that Bauer repeats it again (emphasis added):
And, here the cover-up unravels. You can’t serve on either Advisory Board while keeping your job as a Congressman. From Executive Order 13462 regarding the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board:
And from Executive Order 13501 regarding the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board:
The White House may be about to learn what Sir Walter Scott once famously wrote:
May 29, 2010, 2:20 amcecil kirksey says:
OK so you went through a nice analysis of the WH statement and pertinent rules. Then you found the gotcha!! “Employed by the federal government”. Now I am by no means an expert but I am certain that a member of congress is not “employed” by the federal government. They get a paycheck but they do not apply for employment, they are not appointed, they are not hired. Have a nice day.
May 29, 2010, 8:50 amrarango says:
Several thoughts: The law in this case seems to be easily circumvented, which suggests to me laws governing political behaviour, passed by the congress, are most certainly fig leafs.
Looking at the situation a purely political perspective, why did Bill Clinton allow himself to get pulled into this? Sestak is a Clinton supporter–or at least was; could this be a Rahm plot to mire Clinton and thus reduce HRC’s chance to challenge Obama?
The fact the WH response was issued on Friday before a long holiday suggests to me they wanted to bury the story. And this from the most transparent and ethical administration since…
Another political note: will Mr Obama now campaign vigorously for Adm Sestak in the general? Looks to me like the administration has not done the Admiral any favors.
Finally: For Wales, Richard? for Wales?
May 29, 2010, 8:58 amSarcastro says:
Reading this thread leads me to one unavoidable exhortation:
IMPEACH CHICAGO!
May 29, 2010, 10:36 ammls says:
A couple of observations about SAT Lawyer’s interesting comments. First, we need to distinguish between two questions: (1) did the job offer discussed with Sestak actually involve service on an unpaid presidential or executive board (or was it limited to such a board)? and (2) would it have been legal or proper for Sestak to serve on such a board?
These are not the same questions. It seems entirely conceivable that Emmanuel and Clinton could have offered Sestak a position on a presidential board even if Sestak was clearly or arguably ineligible to serve. I suspect that their preference was for Sestak to stay in the House, and therefore they preferred not to offer him a full-time executive position as an opening bid. It seems like a stretch to think that a spot on a presidential board would actually induce Sestak to drop out, but they may have figured that if he wanted some other consideration (such as a high level appointment), he would raise it with Clinton.
Could Sestak have served on the Intelligence Advisory Board as a sitting member of Congress? It is not as clear as Cecil Kirsey suggests that Members are not “employed” by the federal government. While the term “employee” is sometimes used distinctly from “officer” (ie, those covered by the Appointments Clause) and “member,” it can also be used as a general term covering all three categories (for example, in the Federal Tort Claims Act). In this context, I would think that the most reasonable interpretation is that it is intended to exclude anyone in the legislative, executive or judicial branches, but it is possible that Obama could interpret the term differently or, for that matter, could change the terms of executive order.
More interesting to me is whether it would be appropriate for a sitting Member to serve on such a board. Under the Incompatible Offices Clause, Members can and have served on congressional investigatory commissions and the like, and they serve on odd hybrid type boards like the one that oversees the Smithsonian. But I am not aware of sitting members serving on boards that exist solely to advise the President or the executive branch. It is arguable that a purely advisory role would not violate the Incompatible Offices Clause, but unless there is precedent for it, it would at least raise questions that would have to be resolved by the relevant House. And it strikes me as unseemly even if technically permissible.
May 29, 2010, 10:38 amAngus says:
mls and SAT Lawyer,
May 29, 2010, 10:53 amEven IF Congressmen can be considered “employees” of the federal government (and that is very iffy), those Presidential Boards were set up by Executive Order, which any current or future executive can modify or abolish if they so choose. Obama wants to appoint a Congressman to a board and the current rules don’t allow it? One stroke of the pen and the rules now do allow it.
mls says:
Angus- yeah, I said that. What’s your point?
May 29, 2010, 11:06 amStephen Lathrop says:
Republicans want to use impeachments like timeouts in basketball. If the momentum turns against you, you throw one in there and hope that slows the other side down. Won’t the country be great when Democrats conclude they have to use the same rules? What’s the limit? Each side gets 3 per century?
May 29, 2010, 11:08 amzuch says:
“[W]hen the facts certainly were material”?!?!? And you base this on?: _____
“[M]aterial” to what? And what was the “lie”?
Cheers,
May 29, 2010, 11:44 amzuch says:
Then why did they use the word “consideration”? Were they expecting a lot (or a lack) of contemplation and/or politeness?
Cheers,
May 29, 2010, 11:52 amzuch says:
Not to mention, offering him a job he was not eligible for (if that was indeed the case, as SAT Lawyer assumes) doesn’t constitute a violation of 18 USC § 600.
Cheers,
May 29, 2010, 11:58 amA.W. says:
Col. Angus
> There are multiple ways that the statute does not apply to the situation
Well, given that you aren’t naming them, i will take that reposte as seriously as it deserves to be.
You’re like the memo itself–no argument, so basically “trust us, its legal!”
But of course I am the one who is biased against this administration.
May 29, 2010, 12:46 pmcecil kirksey says:
“Unseemly”? What about the Warren Commission? Or are you too young for that piece of history? Have a nice day.
May 29, 2010, 12:55 pmBobVB says:
Since all of the asking happened before his official announcement of candidacy this is, as they say, a non-story.
May 29, 2010, 1:29 pmTaxNerd says:
Then why did they use the word “consideration”? Were they expecting a lot (or a lack) of contemplation and/or politeness?Cheers,
They also use the words favor and reward. This seems to indicate that the statute should apply to a wide range of agreement, contractual of not. I was using the words non-legally. If in can give somebody something right away or very soon, I will say I offered it to him. If I can only tell someone I’ll give them something at a later time, I’ll say I promised it to them. That a promise of future performance supported by consideration is an offer in contract law isn’t exactly the point we were discussing.
May 29, 2010, 3:11 pmLester Livio says:
So Sestak was offered a job he is not eligible for! Clinton, Rahm and Obama must think Sestak is a raving lunatic…unless this is just a distraction to cover the real job he was offered and turned down!
May 29, 2010, 3:56 pmJustin says:
Almost everyone in this thread (and most importantly Professor Adler) deserves an F for statutory interpretation/legislation. There has been no analysis of the purpose or ambiguity obvious in 18 USC 600. Any analysis into the purpose or legislative history would establish its inapplicability even without resort to the rule of leniency.
May 29, 2010, 4:38 pmjeffry house says:
The “story” is how easy it is for the media to make nothing into something.
The Republicans are just “shocked” that someone might try to dissuade someone from declaring as a candidate. Because they would NEVER do that,
May 29, 2010, 4:52 pmFury says:
Come now. President Clinton was still obligated to answer questions during during depositions truthfully and not answer questions intentionally falsely, which Federal Judge Wright deemed occurred, when she fined Clinton $90,000 in 1999 – see Jones v. Clinton, 36 F.Supp.2d. 1118 (E.D.Ark. 12 April 1999). His conduct was not something manufactured by anyone other than himself.
May 29, 2010, 9:22 pmzuch says:
No. He can tell them the moon is made out of swiss cheese, or that it’s none of their effin’ business … if it’s not material. Which is what I suggested he do at the time (too bad he wasn’t reading Usenet at the time, I guess).
I’d note that Judge Wright excluded all the Lewinsky testimony (as well she should, given the FRE and the fact that FRE Rules 412 or 415 obviously didn’t pertain).
This is particularly true when the opposing party was (ab)using discovery for extrajudicial purposes (also cautioned against in the FRE), and then ignoring the spirit if not the letter of Wright’s gag order in the case. If there was anyone that deserved contempt of court citations, it was the Jones lawyers.
Cheers,
May 30, 2010, 1:41 amA.W. says:
By the way, to everyone saying that the Democrats have a legitimate interest doing this crime, um, no. In case you missed the reports, the Democratic party of Pennsylvania didn’t want Arlan Spector to be their senator-nominee. And in fact, the party boss declaring a winner without a fight contradicts the entire idea of a democratic nomination process. Of course, the Democrats are free to abolish that kind of nomination process, and allow the choice to be made in the smoke-filled rooms again, but if you are not going to go with the official smoke-filled room option, it is hypocrisy to make the nomination de facto the result of the same powerful interests.
So no, they do not have a legitimate interest in bribing man to drop out of the race. And, if they want to bribe a person, they can do it with something other than benefits created by the taxpayer. They can use private wealth, instead.
May 30, 2010, 12:53 pmBobVB says:
Again, he was talked to before he was in the race – he didn’t declare his candidacy until August, he was talked to in June and July. They asked a non-candidate if there was something he would rather do than be a candidate – nothing more.
Everywhere you go the ones that want this to be illegal seem to have a cognitive disconnect on this – it gets pointed out and they just keep talking as if they didn’t hear it.
May 30, 2010, 5:00 pmMike O says:
Of course they do. It’s called a campaign. Then, ostensibly, the voters hire the candidate they like the most.
Further, are you prepared to assert that receiving a paycheck from an entity does not constitute employment by that entity? I’d be interested to see you argue that to the IRS.
May 30, 2010, 8:42 pmA.W. says:
Bob
> Again, he was talked to before he was in the race — he didn’t declare his candidacy until August,
Jesus, Bob, either you were born yesterday or you think all of us were. These guys are in the race often years before officially “declaring” it. But everyone knew he was running, WHICH IS WHY BILL CLINTON TALKED TO HIM. I mean if no one knew he was running, then how did Bill Clinton know to talk to him? Was he psychic?
The fact that the sycophants and spinmeisters can’t get away from is that the Obama administration tried to bribe a man, with a benefit you and I pay for, to prevent an outcome that the Democratic party of Pennsylvania actually wanted. He tried to use corruption to thwart the will of the people of the Democratic party. If the Democratic party leadership didn’t want to hear from their rabble, they need to actually abolish the primary system and go back to the smoke filled room. And they have a right to do that. But if they are going to make the state go through the expense of a primary, it should not be rigged by bribes, and the law says it can’t be.
May 31, 2010, 9:05 amBobVB says:
But everyone knew he was running, WHICH IS WHY BILL CLINTON TALKED TO HIM. I mean if no one knew he was running, then how did Bill Clinton know to talk to him? Was he psychic?
Yes I think you were born yesterday if you think someone who is talking about running is the same as someone who actually is running. he wasn’t on the ballot, he wasn’t registered with the state as a candidate.
For someone who frequents a law blog its odd you don’t understand the process about how things happen. Shoot using your standard I could be a candidate, I just haven’t bothered to register yet.
May 31, 2010, 9:27 pmA.W. says:
Bob
> he wasn’t on the ballot, he wasn’t registered with the state as a candidate.
And if you think that when a person is officially running is the only time they are running, you have not been paying attention. Seriously, you must think we are stupid to fall for such an obvious piece of baloney.
And I might add that it’s a distinction that has no statutory support.
Also just say that something is not necessary, is not the same as saying something is sufficient. And I am not going to pretend you are too slow to grasp the difference. Exactly no one is convinced by your spin.
Seriously, are you the white house counsel? Because you are about equally convincing.
May 31, 2010, 11:14 pmBobVB says:
And if you think that when a person is officially running is the only time they are running, you have not been paying attention.
No I have, you haven’t.
Seriously, you must think we are stupid to fall for such an obvious piece of baloney.
Yes your desire to pretend that he was a candidate when he wasn’t is very motivating for you to the point the notes you leave are just mixes of ad hominem and rants.
Pretty obviously no one is a candidate until they register as a candidate, shoe horning a potential a state they weren’t in just to suit yourself says all anyone one needs to know about you.
You’re a lawyer, right? I wouldn’t be shocked.
June 1, 2010, 12:02 amA.W. says:
Notice, you ignore the heart of the matter. The statute doesn’t make the distinction you are attempting to carve out. The rest is just pratter where you deny what happens in literally every election cycle: people are “in” an election long before they file papers and everone knows it.
But hey, if you want to continue to pretend that Clinton’s psychic, um, okay. Again, you are fooling no one, except maybe yourself.
June 1, 2010, 2:17 amBobVB says:
No you never brought it up.
Oh please, 18 USC 211 doesn’t apply as there was no thing of value requested or given, he wasn’t a candidate at the time so 595 doesn’t apply.
It doesn’t matter how potty mouth you get, you aren’t a candidate until you are declared and filed. Asking someone not to put their hat in the ring is very different from asking them to remove it. Rumors that he might only surfaced at the end of May 2009 at which time he was still telling people it was an as yet unmade family decision, a decision he did not announce until 4 August 2009. Note that there is no claim of any contact after that date – if this was all just some knowingly illegal act why would all the efforts to get him to not enter the race occur before his declaration of candidacy? If it was being done illegally wouldn’t that have just increased their efforts?
Can we agree at the very least that asking someone not to run if they are as yet undeclared is no more illegal than asking them to run? (both things the WH did by the way).
June 1, 2010, 3:04 amA.W. says:
Bob
> No you never brought it up.
Yes, I did: to quote myself: “And I might add that it’s a distinction that has no statutory support.”
Then you go on to talk about every statute, but the one this post has been discussing.
> Can we agree at the very least that asking someone not to run if they are as yet undeclared is no more illegal than asking them to run?
Asking isn’t illegal, bribery is.
June 1, 2010, 8:59 amBobVB says:
Interesting, how is offering someone support for the lucrative job of being the supported candidate any more different than saying you will find something else they can do instead of being a candidate? Both situations seem identical to me…
Oh and 600 obviously doesn’t apply since he was not a candidate in any election at the time of the talks, again, he declared his candidacy 4 August 2009.
So the WH asked him to run, Spector flips, they change their mind and ask him not to run, they say they can find him something else to do if he doesn’t, he still decides to become a candidate and there is no indication the WH did anything past that obvious and common sense legal cusp.
Sounds like they followed the letter of the law, better than the Republican examples of this kind of thing currently circulating the net as examples.
This really is a non-story.
June 1, 2010, 11:47 amA.W. says:
Bob
> Both situations seem identical to me…
Sure bribery, support, what’s the difference?
> Oh and 600 obviously doesn’t apply since he was not a candidate
As usual, you keep trying to push a distinction the statute doesn’t make. Look at that word “political activity.” Duh.
As usual, you fool no one. Except maybe yourself.
Now i will say it is not the most earth shattering story, but something illegal did happen, and for once i would like to see those in power pay like any ordinary citizen. imagine that.
June 1, 2010, 1:04 pmBobVB says:
So no one in office can ask someone to become a candidate without breaking the law? I mean they are both being bribed in the same way – offered something of value.
I will let that notion serve to punctuate the ridiculous depths that those who will the WH ill will go to – obviously neither situation is a ‘political activity’ since the individual isn’t a candidate for the office in either situation.
“Know thyself.” Please.
June 1, 2010, 1:11 pmA.W. says:
Bob
> So no one in office can ask someone to become a candidate without breaking the law? I mean they are both being bribed in the same way — offered something of value.
Sorry, you’re being obtuse again, and putting words in my mouth I didn’t say, based on implication that make no sense from, well reality. Asking a person to run for office is not a bribe unless that person can actually deliver it to them. Last time I checked, the democratic rabble decides who gets to be their nominee, and being their nominee isn’t very valuable except as a step to victory. Obama can say, “I want Sestak” all he wants, but the people of the Democratic party of PA have the ultimate choice. Oh, unless the legal regime you propose comes into play, in which the primary election becomes a sham the likes of which would make the soviets blush.
By comparison, presidents choose their presidential commissions.
And no you don’t have to be a candidate or anything to engage in political activity. However much you might wish the requirement of formal candidacy into the law, it isn’t there.
June 1, 2010, 1:48 pmBobVB says:
Ha! Just being the supported candidate is lucrative in and of itsel, just ask Palin.
And once again the what must be deliberate conflating of of candidates and non-candidates. Of course they get to decide from the candidates, they don’t decide who the candidates are, that’s their choice, one Sestak didn’t make until 4 August 2009.
And as I demonstrated and you agreed, if political activity involves the mere asking anyone to consider anything in the political realm advocating me to vote is illegal.
Again, the ridiculous nature of your position stands as testimony against it.
June 1, 2010, 2:02 pmA.W. says:
Bob
Okay first, on the candidate thing. The statute says “to any person.” Not to any candidate. Last time I checked there were many people who were not candidates, and some of them even engaged in political activity.
As for the rest of it, sorry, is that supposed to be English? I can’t respond to an argument that is not even sufficiently readable.
June 1, 2010, 3:03 pmBobVB says:
yes ad hominem are your first resort always. Since its perfectly obvious that your ‘any person’ ‘any political activity’ would make asking someone to vote a violation (since it has intrinsic benefit) all you’ve done is demonstrate the ludicrous nature of your interpretation.
June 1, 2010, 3:41 pmA.W. says:
Bob
Pointing out that you wrote out sentences that are literally impossible to decipher is not an ad hominem. An ad hom is an attack on the person; at worst, that was an attack on your words, which i stand by. Your responses didn’t make actual sense in terms of decipherability, let alone sound reason.
> Since its perfectly obvious that your ‘any person’ ‘any political activity’ would make asking someone to vote a violation
No. And nothing I have said would reach this conclusion. But you know what would? “Vote and I will give you a government job.” I mean presuming the job met all the requirements of the act. Or “vote and I will give you a government grant for college.” And I have never said merely asking was against the rules. In fact, I specifically denied that. So either you are thick, or you are lying. And you can call that an ad hom all you want, but when you are either too stupid or too dishonest to accurately restate my arguments, what am I supposed to think?
Here are my exact words:
> [you] Can we agree at the very least that asking someone not to run if they are as yet undeclared is no more illegal than asking them to run?
> [me] Asking isn’t illegal, bribery is.
It couldn’t be clearer, but you are pretending that i said asking IS illegal.
June 1, 2010, 4:33 pmBobVB says:
Since there is virtually nothing you could ask that wasn’t beneficial in some way, and you have included ‘all persons, all political activity’ as your sorting (or lack of) criteria, yes you have.
Please, ask me to do anything political that doesn’t have a possible benefit one way or the other. They asked a citizen if he would considering running for an office, changed their minds and asked him if he might want some other job they have instead of eventually deciding to run. He said ‘no thanks’, decided to run for office, no one talked to him again once he became political.
Again, a non-story.
June 1, 2010, 4:42 pmAgain, non-story
leo marvin says:
Bob,
You may want to consider how much time and effort it’s worth trying to reason in good faith with this commenter. An “A.W.” was banned from this site a while back. I suppose it’s possible this is a different “A.W.”, or it could be the same “A.W.” and s/he got re-admitted by promising to clean up his/her act. It’s also possible it’s the same “A.W.” and s/he’s still banned, since the bloggers candidly admit they can’t enforce bans against persistent trolls.
June 1, 2010, 4:44 pmBobVB says:
ah thanks, though this line of rabid ‘over the edge’ kind of talk isn’t limited to AW…
are they all channelling Glenn Beck?
June 1, 2010, 4:52 pmA.W. says:
Bob
> Since there is virtually nothing you could ask that wasn’t beneficial in some way,
*puts head in hands* so you are arguing that the benefits of the job itself is the bribe. So if you say, “gee, you should run for president. It beats the pay at Denny’s” it is a bribe. No, of course the statute doesn’t turn that into a bribe. And?
> They asked a citizen if he would considering running for an office, changed their minds and asked him if he might want some other job they have instead of eventually deciding to run.
And offered him a benefit, in the form of a prestigious post, paid for by congress as an inducement not to run.
> once he became political.
Right, because Sestak, a U.S Representative, was not political up until then.
June 1, 2010, 4:57 pm