Will the AG investigate claims that the Obama WH tried to bribe a Democratic Rep?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...ll-clinton-to-ask-sestak-to-drop-out-of-race/

So they do admit offering him a job in exchange for dropping out of the race? That's pretty major if what some sources are saying is true about the legality of that.

It's not a "job." It's an unpaid position.

AFAIK, there's no illegality in saying, "You can have an unpaid position if you drop out of the race."

If anyone can point to a counter-example where someone was prosecuted for offering someone an unpaid position, I'd be curious.

Fucking pathetic.

This is unreal. And smells of the Clintons. job\unpaid position is\is.

I don't think whether it was paid or not matters. According to the article in the OP, U.S.C. 600

If it's a government position, it's a government position, whether it's paid or volunteer.

The question is whether Sestak was promised that position in exchange for dropping out or not. Did Bill Clinton go to him and say "Hey, Joe, the Obama administration is willing to appoint you to this advisory position if you quit the race?" Or did he say "Hey, Joe, Barack was thinking you'd be great for this advisory post. How would that fit in with your plans for the future? Do you have time, what with the campaign and all?"

Every party leader, from the president down to the lowest level district leader, routinely encourages people to run or not run for office. Every person who ever makes a campaign donation does as well. If this is an illegal effort to influence an election, then so is every campaign donation ever made and every endorsement ever given.

If Obama had called Sestak and said "Hey, Joe, I really don't think you should run," that would have been run-of-the-mill and entirely legal. If Obama had given $1,000 to Specter's campaign, that would have been legal too.

Offering a job in exchange for a specific political action is explicitly prohibited by law, while campaign donations and endorsements are not.

So what the Obama administration is just as wrong and illegal as what reagan did, right?

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/29/600

The bolded part may be relevant.

As I read it, this section wouldn't apply to appointment to a presidential commission or body not made possible or provided for by an act of Congress.

Which makes sense, given separation of powers. The president is able to appoint whoever he wants, generally speaking, to those.

Wrong in the tsk, tsk, business as usual sense? Yes.

Illegal? Not as far as I know. Unless someone shows an example of someone convicted or even prosecuted for saying, "Would you like to get this job? You can have it for dropping out."

Let alone saying "Would you like to have this unpaid position? Then drop out."

So no one can ever be the first person convicted or even prosecuted under a law?



[Congrats on the law stuff, good for you, and good luck with bar exams.]

Obviously someone can be and will be the first person.

But in the context of this situation, no one seems to be disputing that similar situations to this have happened for years, and the law has been (presumably) around for years as well.

It's a fairly safe presumption that this isn't the first time such a situation would come to the attention of the authorities.

Even the lawyers here aren't likely going to do any indepth research into what the meaning of the law might be in this area to score points with WFers.

So a relatively safe proxy would be -- especially given that both the law and the situations have been around for a while -- a show of an actual prosecution of someone for this sort of thing.

Of course, the absence of such a prosecution isn't conclusive evidence, as our dear friend Donny Rumsfeld might note. It may be that such an action as described in these news articles is technically illegal, but that prosecutors have generally decided they have better things to do.

Thank you, sir. Let's just hope the law field decides to pull out of its recession by the time I'm done with the bar! And that I don't die of boredom while studying for it.


I do think these sorts of things go on fairly commonly, and if it were actually

So why did they stall for a few months? Why not just answer the questions straight away?

Sounds like Clinton and Obama got together yesterday for lunch to get their stories straight.

Anyway doesn't matter. Like I said he would never be impeached over this because others would take the fall for him but this will be used against him.

The cloud of suspicsion is only going to go away for the kool-aid drinkers. Normal sane people know he's covering up his actions.

Plus the oil spill is a bigger disaster for him.

Why is it that the people who yammer on and on about the high-and-mighty principle of campaign donations being sacrosanct free speech throw a hissy fit over an allegation of a non-campaign donation? Is there any plausible conception of speech under which a donation conditioned on running a campaign is speech but a donation conditioned on not running a campaign isn't?

So...(not really taking a side here because I have no doubt this is an "everybody does it" moment but I have to make this observation)...

The White House has a situation which calls for a skilled liar to spin a cover story to mask a potentially politically damaging fiasco - and they called on Bill Clinton?

Well, at least this time the hired the most qualified man for the job!

OMG!!!!!!!!!!! It takes forever for you people to answer a SIMPLE question. You could be politicians for Christ's sake.

Here, this is the easy answer for anyone with one ounce of grey matter, and no stomach for bullshit-

No.

If Sestak turned down a volunteer job for a shot at the Senate, which pays $174,000 a year, he may be totally stupid after all, even for a Democrat.

^A little late pulling that particular trigger, sir.

Great picture! I love the lack of a link, and the fact that it doesn't say he was offered a job!

Google is your friend.

http://twitpic.com/1ruq64

And it says in the first paragraph that "Reagan would find him a job."

If that's not being offered a job, I don't know what to tell you.

That does seem sketchy.

Indeed. Obama could murder a couple dozen gay lovers, and Liet would be like "But, but, Jeffrey Dahmer did that years ago. Was it wrong when Jeffrey Dahmer did it?"

There's no doubt the Reagan administration was crookeder than a porn star's penis, but what bearing does that have on whether it's legal?

It's clearly legal. It was just fine when Reagan did it. It has bearing on the fact that people complaining about Obama doing it are lying hypocritical retards unworthy of breathing.

Efforts to reinterpret an old law to mean that something that has been standard and entirely noncontroversial practice for the entire history of the Republic, both long before and long after the law "at issue" was enacted, is somehow suddenly illegal and scandalous are transparently the work of morons.

I just wish Liet had followed that woman's advice at the courthouse, instead of just taking a picture of her for his avatar.