SestakGate

[fab]

Did he get offered a bribe:

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have asked Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate allegations that the White House offered a job to Rep. Joe Sestak to drop out of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary.


The Republicans, led by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), ranking member of the panel, sent a letter to Holder on Wednesday, asking the Justice Department to investigate the Sestak claim and determine whether a crime was committed. House Republicans have made a similar request, and were rebuffed by Justice.


Sestak, a Democrat, defeated incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) last week for the party's Senate nomination. Since then, Sestak has continually deflected questions on who offered him what job in the Obama administration, although he has repeatedly confirmed that the incident did occur.


Seeking a chance to pick up the Pennsylvania Senate seat, Republicans have pressed both Sestak and the White House to provide more information on the incident, which took place sometime in mid-2009, according to Sestak.


The Justice Department has already rejected a call from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, to appoint a special counsel to investigate the Sestak incident.


Issa has also threatened to file a complaint with House ethics committee against Sestak if the Pennsylvania Democrat declines to offer more information on what occurred and who made the job offer. Sestak has repeatedly declined to identify the White House official.


Senate Judiciary Republicans, in their letter to Holder, said that that if Sestak were telling the truth about the job offer, it could “suggest a possible violation of various federal criminal laws intended to safeguard our political process from the taint of bribes and political machine manipulation.”


Calls are increasing for Sestak to come clean about who in the White House offered him what job.


Pennsylvania’s Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell, originally a Specter supporter, said Wednesday that the White House and Sestak should provide more information on what happened. Rendell joins some other Democrats, including Senatge Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), on pressing Sestak to open up about the incident.


“I think both he and the White House should tell people a little more clearly what happened and then put it behind them,” Rendell told POLITICO.


Rendell said did not believe having someone in the White House offer Sestak a job was a violation of federal law or ethics rules.


“Stuff like this has been going on for time immemorial,” Rendell added. Rendell said he told former Rep. Joe Hoeffel (D-Pa.) not to run against GOP Sen. Rick Santorum in 2006, which helped Democrat Bob Casey. Casey went on to beat Santorum in Nov. 2006.


“I did it when Joe Hoeffel was considering running for Senate in the Democratic primary against Bob Casey,” Rendell said.


“I called Joe, and I said, ‘Joe, the polls show that Casey has a better chance to win. If you run against him in the primary, it will suck money away, and Santorum is gonna have lots of money. I’d like you not to run and I love what you’ve done governmentally, and if you want to stay in government, I’m sure that we can find something that can challenge you in state government.’ That’s not against the law, and it’s been done by Republicans and Democrats for time immemorial. They [the White House and Sestak] should say what happened and move on.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz0p45SRvQx

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37813.html

[Donald Aquilano]

Of course he was offered a bribe and he didn't take it. I wonder who will be the fall guy for Obama on this one? Rahm Emanuel? He was only going to stay for two years anyway so that's who I'm betting on.

[Raider]

I've been following this story too, How many times now has Robert Gibbs been ducking the press on key questions, 4 times now? Like he thinks it will go away... LOL

Joe Sestak is also not coming clean... If they have nothing to hide and White Lawyers claim nothing illegal happened, why all the dodging?

Of course he was offered a bribe and he didn't take it. I wonder who will be the fall guy for Obama on this one? Rahm Emanuel? He was only going to stay for two years anyway so that's who I'm betting on.

I think your right Don, Obama rarely accepts responsibility for anything, The only time he does is when it's a positive so he claim credit for it.

[Arrogance]

Story hasn't been receiving anywhere close to the coverage it deserves.... imo

[Raider]

Obama is due to hold his first press conference in nearly 1 year concerning the Oil spill..... Knowing Obama and the way likes to be in control, any questions concerning this matter wont be allowed, you watch.

[fab]

Story hasn't been receiving anywhere close to the coverage it deserves.... imo

Why would you think a case of outright bribery, concerning someone close to the president if not himself deserves coverage, rofl!

[Arrogance]

Why would you think a case of outright bribery, concerning someone close to the president if not himself deserves coverage, rofl!

Heh. Seems Clinton and Emanuel have been implicated: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...fer-becam.html

This story won't (nor should it) go away, hopefully more of the major media outlets will consider giving coverage to the incident

[bmugford]

Adding "Gate" to a word is so 1990's.

Brad

[fab]

Adding "Gate" to a word is so 1990's.

Brad

Nostalgia!

[jberryhill]

Ah, yes, nostalgia....

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=5060,5317656

November 26, 1981:

Washington - Sen. S.I. Hayakawa 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.

"I'm not interested," said the 75 year old Hayakawa. "I do not want to be an ambassador, and I do not want an administration post."

----

There was nothing illegal in either circumstance, btw. Go ahead, post the text of the statute, and explain why you think it was okay when Saint Ronnie offered an ambassadorship to Senator Hayakawa if he would pull out of a primary.

[fab]

Maureen Reagan Denies Reagan Hayakawa Deal - http://powip.com/2010/05/maureen-rea...hayakawa-deal/
and here's some more discussion - http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...7211e?lnk=raot
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=389x8443966
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/sho...53501&p=643682

[jberryhill]

Maureen Reagan Denies Reagan Hayakawa Deal

Yeah... Hayakawa and Ed Rollins just made it up. Because the daughter of his first marriage was a top political advisor.

I guess you aren't going to cite and apply the statute, are you?

[fab]

Yeah... Hayakawa and Ed Rollins just made it up. Because the daughter of his first marriage was a top political advisor.

I guess you aren't going to cite and apply the statute, are you?

Yes they should investigate both cases, in Reagan's case they should definitely remove him from his grave - http://www.theonion.com/video/zombie...ead-gop,14385/

Here are a few codes - http://community.marketwatch.com/gro...l-codes-18-usc , btw, I thought you were a lawyer, why don't you quote them and provde your rebuttal.

[jberryhill]

I thought you were a lawyer, why don't you quote them and provde your rebuttal.

Why don't you exercise a little independent thought instead of copying and pasting someone a link to some other forum. You say it was illegal. Can you, in your own words, identify the law in question and explain how any set of alleged facts fits that law.

I'll wait.

[fab]

Why don't you exercise a little independent thought instead of copying and pasting someone a link to some other forum. You say it was illegal. Can you, in your own words, identify the law in question and explain how any set of alleged facts fits that law.

I'll wait.

First post:

Did he get offered a bribe:

NO, I'm not yet a lawyer, but here they are:
18 USC 600

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment,
position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit,
provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of
Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such
benefit, to any person as consideration, 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.

18 USC 211

Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution,
or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in
consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in
obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the
United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than one year, or both.
Whoever solicits or receives any thing of value in consideration
of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States
either by referring his name to an executive department or agency
of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because
such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this
title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section
shall not apply to such services rendered by an employment agency
pursuant to the written request of an executive department or
agency of the United States.

18 USC 595

Sec. 595. Interference by administrative employees of Federal,
State, or Territorial Governments


Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section shall not prohibit or make unlawful any act by any officer or employee of any educational or research institution, establishment, agency, or system which is supported in whole or in part by any state or political subdivision thereof, or by the District of Columbia or by any Territory or Possession of the United States; or by any recognized religious, philanthropic or cultural organization.

When you take an article, which was used in the blogosphere you could post a link as well!

[jberryhill]

Very good. You posted some statutory language. Now, you can do the other part - apply the facts to the language.

[Donald Aquilano]

Why don't you exercise a little independent thought instead of copying and pasting someone a link to some other forum. You say it was illegal. Can you, in your own words, identify the law in question and explain how any set of alleged facts fits that law.

I'll wait.

Independent thought? This coming from someone who has his head up Obama's ass most of the time. You really are a hypocrite sometimes.

[fab]

Very good. You posted some statutory language. Now, you can do the other part - apply the facts to the language.

Great, you want me to do interpretation or apply precidents. I'm so glad to get a free legal lecturer.

Employment, benefit, etc. includess being offered a position. That's the bribe.
in consideration, that's the exchange.

---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------

Independent thought? This coming from someone who has his head up Obama's ass most of the time. You really are a hypocrite sometimes.

Actually I don't think he's doing this to me out of respect, but more like the opposite; although I am actually enjoying this. He is definitely helping me learn better debating skills, which can only be picked up by debating opposing thought.