• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House Asked Bill Clinton to Urge Sestak to Drop Out of Senate Race


Chris Wallace is a punk. I doubt he's ever been a Dem.

If you and your ilk seriously have your panties in such a knot over this then why weren't you similarly outraged when Bush did it? How about when your other treasonist hero, Ronnie the arms dealer, did the same thing? I bet you were as silent as a bug, weren't you? Ain't that sumpin? :roll:

If you'ld get off your Kool-Aid Pony and do some research into that law you would find it was not intended for this type of thing. Hence, no responsible lawyer, including Repubs, are calling for any action on this.

Note: you don't see any of the jailhouse lawyers in here saying this was illegal either. Do you? :2wave:

It's quite fitting that the sight of my name brings Carly's tunes to your mind. She is a huge Dem supporter. I believe that shows you're not too far gone. Carly is awesome.

Speaking of czars... you do know which pres started that little habit of presidents... doncha?
 
Last edited:

Your comedy routine has me in fits of laughter.

We both know where this is heading... to more press coverage.
To an investigation.

Just sit back and enjoy the show.

I think Obi and his boyz said it well... something along the lines of keeping boots on necks or throats.
It's time for them to feel a boot or two. First on the neck, then in the ass.

What is hilarious is we have Felonius Bill back in the saddle, right in the middle of another Presidential mess. ROTFLOL...

.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
We both know where this is heading... to more press coverage.

Just sit back and enjoy the show..
Click to expand...

Absolutely! This is no more than a right wing tantrum.

There will be no investigation. Why? There is no crime.

Be careful what you wish for my right wing pal. The more press coverage this gets, the more Repub attorneys say this is not a crime, the more the Repukes look like the whiners and liars that they are.

I am surely enjoying the Repukes whine about a non issue. And that only makes sense, since they haven't had any real issues of their own for years. :2wave:
 

Tantrum? I don't do tantrums... unless there is such a thing as a laughing out loud tantrum.

18 USC 600.
Signed into law... ROTFLOL... by Felonius Bill.

Felonius is the gift that keeps on giving:
Signs the law.
Breaks the law with Obi's blessing...
...and we are supposed to believe a Chicago Machine Thug, and proven perjurer... LOL.

What will a little investigating hurt?
Afraid of something? ... LOL

LINK: YouTube - Clinton, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...

.
 
I only have a couple of things to say about this matter.

If Obama learned how to be a politician in any other city but Chicago I would beleive him more.

Clinton should be extremely insulted about this. When the white house needed a fall guy, if the story is true, they call Ex-President Clinton. Why? He is known as a dirty dealer and the rule of law doesn't mean anything to him. He should be insulted for the white house even calling him on this.

Another thing, the public in general should be outraged. The White House tried to take away their choice in Penn. for this position. Elections are not an aceptable way to choose one over the other. The White House has to make that decision for the people of the state. Anybody involved in this should be investigated by an independant investigator that has nothing to do with the government on either side.

Business as usual should be used as a road to more prosecutions and not as an excuse to continue to do it.

It is not the White Houses place to choose who can run and who can't to protect a lifetime politician.

I hope this changes "business as usual"
 
zimmer said:
Tantrum? I don't do tantrums.
Click to expand...

Waddaya call this? :roll:

...and we are supposed to believe a Chicago Machine Thug, and proven perjurer... LOL.

What will a little investigating hurt?
Afraid of something? ... LOL
Click to expand...

Childish reasoning. The actual law says nothing illegal was done. You don't get to go on a witch hunt, aka Ken Star-like, until legal folks (i.e. the Attorney General) say there might have been a crime. In this case, Repub and Dem attorneys say "Move along folks. Nothing to see here".

So, move along sonny. :2wave:
 
Mason66 said:
I only have a couple of things to say about this matter.

If Obama learned how to be a politician in any other city but Chicago I would beleive him more.
Click to expand...

Oi vey! :roll: Ya mean that the facts of what did and did not happen don't carry as much weight as where he is from? :doh

Clinton should be extremely insulted about this.
Click to expand...

Clinton agreed to do this because he knew it was legal.

Another thing, the public in general should be outraged. The White House tried to take away their choice in Penn. for this position.
Click to expand...

Spare us your indignation. Politicians convince others in their party to not run against a favorite guy all the time. This was no different.

Business as usual should be used as a road to more prosecutions and not as an excuse to continue to do it.
Click to expand...

Politics, as defined, can be an ugly business. that does not mean that "politics as usual" is illegal or unethical.

It is not the White Houses place to choose who can run and who can't to protect a lifetime politician.
Click to expand...

Shirley you jest! The president is the leader of his party. It is his role to help his party. One way he can do that is to try to keep folks in certain offices there if they are supportive of his party.

I hope this changes "business as usual"
Click to expand...

Where were all you self righteous zeolots when Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay were doing this all over the country?

Can you say, H Y P O C R I T E S?
 
ADK_Forever said:
Waddaya call this? :roll:
Click to expand...

Are you that oblivious to what a tantrum actually means?

Stating that someone is a proven perjurer isn't a tantrum. And its a fact.

Now bolding your entire reply.... might want to look into that

Childish reasoning. The actual law says nothing illegal was done.
Click to expand...

The law does not say that. In fact it says the opposite. Unless you refuse to read it which is obvious in your case.


LOL Still fuming we got Slick Willy huh. hahaha

I love it when liberals bring that up. Yes its all Ken Star's fault Clinton refused to tell the truth. :rofl

You can get back to your Obama shrine now. The candles are getting low
 

Once again, Bush's own ethics lawyer says that Title 5 is the applicable law here, and that no crime was committed. According to you, though, he must be one of those damn Leebruls, to have said that, isn't he? :mrgreen:
 
danarhea said:
Once again, Bush's own ethics lawyer says that Title 5 is the applicable law here, and that no crime was committed. According to you, though, he must be one of those damn Leebruls, to have said that, isn't he? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Would you post what part of title 5 is applicable?
 
Crunch said:
Would you post what part of title 5 is applicable?
Click to expand...

I already provided you with a link to to the applicable part, which is quoted by Bush's attorney. It's not my fault if you chose not to read it.
 
danarhea said:
I already provided you with a link to to the applicable part, which is quoted by Bush's attorney. It's not my fault if you chose not to read it.
Click to expand...

Missed it, my bad. Your loss because if you are so lazy as to not want to post it again, you ain't got ****.
 
Crunch said:
Missed it, my bad. Your loss because if you are so lazy as to not want to post it again, you ain't got ****.
Click to expand...

That's really going to win the argument for you.... NOT. What wins the argument is Bush's own ethics lawyer, who properly quoted what is applicable, and your failure to read what I posted. Meanwhile, feel free to rant some more about how I ain't got ****. LOL.
 

A lot of people posted title 18, 600 4 or 5 times because someone missed it.... feel free to be lazy and not back up your claim, means nothing to me. 18, 600 seems pretty clear.
 
Crunch said:
A lot of people posted title 18, 600 4 or 5 times because someone missed it.... feel free to be lazy and not back up your claim, means nothing to me. 18, 600 seems pretty clear.
Click to expand...

Oops, my bad. There is more than one thread on this. I posted the link on the other thread. Here it is:

Legal Ethics Forum: Joe Sestak

The entry is by Richard Painter, Bush's legal ethics attorney when he was in office.

Here is his bio.

 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Oops, my bad. There is more than one thread on this. I posted the link on the other thread. Here it is:

Legal Ethics Forum: Joe Sestak

The entry is by Richard Painter, Bush's legal ethics attorney when he was in office.

Here is his bio.
Click to expand...

Got it, thanx.... so we have a guy with an opinion that goes counter to the law (title 18, 600) and because he was with a Republican administration at one point, we are to believe his interpretation instead of the plain facts of the case and law? (you do know that there are other legal opinions that run counter to your link?)

Special prosecutor..... it's the only way we'll ever get to the bottom of this...... or a trial of public opinion, that would be a sad commentary of our times and this very transparent President.
 
danarhea said:
Oops, my bad. There is more than one thread on this. I posted the link on the other thread. Here it is:

Legal Ethics Forum: Joe Sestak

The entry is by Richard Painter, Bush's legal ethics attorney when he was in office.

Here is his bio.
Click to expand...

I don't get it Dan. So the Hatch act makes it illegal to hold office and a job with the Federal government at the same time..... I get that.

What I don't get is how that effects this bribe. Let's say you are running for the office of Senator, and I as President come to you and say that I'll give you a job in Government that pays 200 million a year if you drop out of the race..... is that a crime? Or is it ok because if you accept this bribe you couldn't run for the office anyway.
 

What you have is an attorney, who graduated suma cum laude, was Bush's cheif ethics lawyer, who is on the board of the Professional Responsibility Section of the American Bar Association, and whose main specialty happens to be ethics. You can't get much qualified than that. I'll take him over news channel talking heads any day of the week.

That this is some kind of a crime is a non-issue. On the other hand, Obama's ethics is certainly on the table here, and that is the direction Republicans need to take this if they want to make it an issue.
 

Doesn't matter who he is or what degrees he has, it needs to be looked into by a special prosecutor and the facts, not spin be ascertained. Only then can this be looked at as only an ethics problem. I and a lot of other citizens look at this as more bribery by an administration that finds no problem using our tax dollars to buy outcomes that they couldn't obtain by legal means.
 

Dan, I'd love to get your answer to this.
 

Point to note. Painter is centering his position on the caveat: "based on the explanation that the WH is currently standing by". And in itself that seems quite reasonable. But then he (Painter) goes on to cite the Hatch act, which in effect suggests that the "unpaid WH Adviser" position Clinton supposedly offered to Sestak doesn't make a lick of sense.

We will have to wait and see if this story maintains any legs in the coming weeks. But my current impression is that the whole WH story/explanation has a funny smell to it.

(and i really am trying to look at this objectively. It's challenging, but i'm trying.... )


.
 

And I appreciate your balanced and thought out approach to posting on this.
 

Well Dan, your lack of response shows that you see right where I'm going with this and you have no defense..... neither does the White House, it was a felony.
 


I always find it interesting when a member of the opposition party or someone closely associated with same agrees with an issue or outcome that those individuals who support said decision or outcome are all for it. But the moment someone from the opposition party agrees with those they are suppose to oppose suddenly what that person says has no merit. Very interesting indeed.


It was a non-guarenteed, non-paying position. How does that constitute a bribe?
 
Last edited:
Crunch said:
I and a lot of other citizens look at this as more bribery by an administration that finds no problem using our tax dollars to buy outcomes that they couldn't obtain by legal means.
Click to expand...

A) Have these 'other citizens' passed the bar or do they just frequent one?

B) And how do these astute friends feel about the previous administrations doing this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…