Fox news already handled that.
Let me ask you Vicchio, have you ever attempted to pick apart a story, goto some other sources, getting multiple perspectives and then deciding for yourself what the truth is?
typical that they would point to how this is how things get done in Washington. The fact that it is illegal does not seem to matter since it is 'how things are done'
pathetic disgrace, but carry on
Even Sestak says nothing illegal happened so I really don't get where people assume that something illegal did happen.
I know it's splitting hairs, but there IS a difference between "offering" someone something and "promising" someone something. Example:
"If you drop out of the campaign, I can assure you a position on such and such counsel."
...VERSUS...
"Would you be interested in a position on such and such counsel in lieu of continuing as a Congressman in the House of Representatives?"
There's a difference between the two. Add in the fact that it was a former President who made the offer and is obviously familiar with this particular law and knows exactly how to avoid stepping into that legal minefield, and what you get is a situation that looks unethical, but legally is not.
Of course, we all know the Obama Administration did a round-robin here compliments of Bill Clinton, but it still looks bad. Politics as usual I suppose. At worse, Rahm Emanual pays a fine; at best DOJ stands by its position and nothing comes of this. I think we'll see the latter happen because in all honestly no law has been broken.
Sidenote: Even if such a thing has been done by prior White House administrations, it's still bad form.
Even Sestak says nothing illegal happened so I really don't get where people assume that something illegal did happen.
Ok, partisans hacks:
Are you really saying that party strategy is illegal? Because that is precisely what this is, and Republicans do it too, from the highest to the lowest levels. This is just the best scandal they can come up with in the runup to the midterms.
This is the Democratic Party leadership saying "I think it would be better for our overall party strategy for you to have this position and to let such and such run unimpeded for that position". There is nothing illegal about this, and the Republicans know it. But, they know that the good Americans they use will believe it to be a scandal, for a while, which is insulting to the intelligence of those Americans that do. One of these days, they'll realize they are being used and it will backfire on the Republican party. One thing Democrats don't do is insult their own partisans.
Denver Post said:WASHINGTON — Not long after news leaked last month that Andrew Romanoff was determined to make a Democratic primary run against Sen. Michael Bennet, Romanoff received an unexpected communication from one of the most powerful men in Washington.
Jim Messina, President Barack Obama's deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop, suggested a place for Romanoff might be found in the administration and offered specific suggestions, according to several sources who described the communication to The Denver Post.
Romanoff turned down the overture, which included mention of a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency, sources said.
Denver Post said:You might be able to ignore Sestak, but another similar story makes the plot far more plausible.
None of this is exactly shocking stuff — but I was actually slightly surprised to find out that job offers of this variety were illegal. Yet, it is one thing for an administration to "urge" someone to make room for a preferred candidate and quite another for it to use its power to offer (or even discuss) a taxpayer-funded position as a payoff.
Don't take my word for it. Axelrod says it's a breach of law.
On CNN, Axelrod agreed that if Sestak's assertions were true, "they would constitute a serious breach of the law"
I know it's splitting hairs, but there IS a difference between "offering" someone something and "promising" someone something. Example:
"If you drop out of the campaign, I can assure you a position on such and such counsel."
...VERSUS...
"Would you be interested in a position on such and such counsel in lieu of continuing as a Congressman in the House of Representatives?"
There's a difference between the two. Add in the fact that it was a former President who made the offer and is obviously familiar with this particular law and knows exactly how to avoid stepping into that legal minefield, and what you get is a situation that looks unethical, but legally is not.
Of course, we all know the Obama Administration did a round-robin here compliments of Bill Clinton, but it still looks bad. Politics as usual I suppose. At worse, Rahm Emanual pays a fine; at best DOJ stands by its position and nothing comes of this. I think we'll see the latter happen because in all honestly no law has been broken.
Sidenote: Even if such a thing has been done by prior White House administrations, it's still bad form.
It's not what was done, but HOW it was done. Legally, we need facts in order to exonerate the White House and Sestak.
Sloan: "There is no bribery case here." Talking Points Memo's Zachary Roth reported in a May 25 post that "several experts tell TPMmuckraker this is much ado about nothing" and quoted Sloan saying, "There is no bribery case here. ... No statute has ever been used to prosecute anybody for bribery in circumstances like this." Sloan also said: "It's not at all about whether there was actual criminal wrongdoing. ... It's about how to go after Sestak."
Brand: "I don't put much stock in this, and I don't think its gonna go anywhere;" charges have "no legal substance." Roth also quoted Stan Brand, a "prominent Washington criminal defense lawyer," saying that "people horse trade politically all the time. ... So I don't put much stock in this, and I don't think its gonna go anywhere." Brand is also quoted in Mother Jones magazine saying claims that the alleged actions are illegal "is a nice political ploy. ... But it has no legal substance. The president can promise Sestak the moon for a political reason. That's the system."
Zeidenberg: "Horrible precedent" to treat "horsetrading" "in the criminal context." Roth also quoted Peter Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor with the Justice Department's Public Integrity unit, saying, "Talk about criminalizing the political process!... It would be horrible precedent if what really truly is political horsetrading were viewed in the criminal context of: is this a corrupt bribe?"
How many actual credible lawyers have to tell you there is NO CRIME here before the far-righties drop this and move on to something else?
No, legally we need facts to charge them with something.
It's not what was done, but HOW it was done. Legally, we need facts in order to exonerate the White House and Sestak.
They can't and they won't. They have to find any excuse to nail something to the president, and will not stop til he's been drawn, quartered and his head and limbs have been sent to the four corners of America. At least that's the way it feels. Any little thing they can get to pin on him, and they're there screaming and shouting, with foam coming out of their mouths.
How many actual credible lawyers have to tell you there is NO CRIME here before the far-righties drop this and move on to something else?
ROTFLMFAO... Squirm Baby Squirm!!! LOL
That is why Sestak said he was offered a job, and why Obama released the BS parade before a long weekend.
We are not going to drop this. Why should we?
Watching THE ARROGANT ONE illustrate what he means by "most ethical" is priceless.
Sestak made it plain and clear 3-MONTHS ago and several times therafter that he was offered a job to get out of the race with Specter.
No, legally we need facts to charge them with something.
And with this statement you ADMIT a crime was committed.Fair enough. Next time the GOP engages in this exact same practice, I'll expect the same reaction.
If you really wanted to be honest, you could go back and name instances when other administrations did this and you condemned it.
All you need to do is read the interview with Larry Kane.By your initial LOL reaction, I thought you were going to actually make a case for it being a crime, instead you just recite the facts, relevant and otherwise.
The Joe Sestak “Question” – Anatomy Of An Interview That Spread Like Wildfire at The Larry Kane Report
“Were you ever offered a job to get out of this race? (The contest against Arlen Specter).
Sestak didn’t flinch .
“Yes,” he answered.
“Was it Navy Secretary?”, I asked
“No comment.”
He proceeded to talk about staying in the race but added that “he was called many times” to pull out.
Later, I asked, “So you were offered a job by someone in the White House?”
He said, “Yes.”
When the taping stopped, Joe Sestak looked surprised .
“You are the first person who ever asked me that question.”
And that was true. But why was I the first. There was buzz about this story since last summer. A few days before the February 18th taping of Voice Of Reason for The Comcast Network, I was advised by two reliable sources that someone in or close to the White House had dangled a high level job offer to Sestak, to give a clear path to Senator Specter for the nomination. I thought it would be a good thing to pose the question to Sestak in the upcoming interview.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?