Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 113

Thread: Sestak White House scandal called 'impeachable offense'

  1. #51
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Sestak White House scandal called 'impeachable offense'

    I didn't read this thread, so maybe someone has already mentioned this...but I don't think there's anything illegal here. The White House COULDN'T have offered a quid pro quo "Drop out of the race and we'll give you a job" deal. If Sestak had accepted the job, he would have been legally required to resign from Congress anyway, as per the Hatch Act. Therefore, the White House could just dangle the job in front of him, without the quid pro quo. We can argue if that is ethical, but as far as I can tell it isn't illegal.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 05-27-10 at 05:55 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #52
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,136

    Re: Sestak White House scandal called 'impeachable offense'

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    It was a bribe to get him not to run for office
    show me the money .... without such consideration, without any indication of a bribe how can there then be a crime?
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  3. #53
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,136

    Re: Sestak White House scandal called 'impeachable offense'

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I'm not saying that this is a cut and dried case, but this isn't really the right question.

    What makes any offer of employment an illegal act? A violation of a federal statute.

    If we all agree that it would be illegal to offer Sestak the Sec. of Navy job in exchange for $50k, then why is it hard to believe it could be illegal to offer him the same job for another consideration?
    then any offer of a job would have to also be considered a "bribe", thereby making all offers of federal appointments stained as illegal
    anyone who accepts federal employment is subject to the federal standards of conduct ... in this case sestak could not have been the sec of navy and also run for the senate because of those standards
    sestak would have known that
    Obama's people would have known that when the offer was made
    but that does not constitute a bribe. the offer of a federal appointment is not of itself illegal. if it is made with the expectation of consideration, then it might very well become illegal. so, what was the consideration which was requested by Obama/his staff?
    if you are unable to cite such illegal consideration then your premise must be found bogus
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  4. #54
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,733

    Re: Sestak White House scandal called 'impeachable offense'

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    So if you don't trust the DoJ, the media, or other "professionals," who should be doing the investigation?
    Hand picked witch hunters, of course. You didn't know that?
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Sestak White House scandal called 'impeachable offense'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    One thing is guaranteed...

    It will be several generations before a black candidate will be elected to the office of the POTUS, because of this clown's performance.

    An absolutely brilliant black man, or woman, will come along in the near future to run for president and won't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning because of this prick. He's an embarressment to the black community in this country.

    He confirms, along with Jefferson, Sharpton, Jackson and Kilpatrick, that a black politician is corrupt as all hell.
    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Much like Tom Delay confirmed that white politicians are corrupt as all hell.
    Until I see evidence to the contrary,.... I chuz to believe they are ALL corrupt.

    That's right,... guilty (or at the very least suspect) until they rise above and show signs of innocence.

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    fyi Re: Sestak White House scandal called 'impeachable offense'

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    then any offer of a job would have to also be considered a "bribe", thereby making all offers of federal appointments stained as illegal
    anyone who accepts federal employment is subject to the federal standards of conduct ... in this case sestak could not have been the sec of navy and also run for the senate because of those standards
    sestak would have known that
    Obama's people would have known that when the offer was made
    but that does not constitute a bribe. the offer of a federal appointment is not of itself illegal. if it is made with the expectation of consideration, then it might very well become illegal. so, what was the consideration which was requested by Obama/his staff?
    if you are unable to cite such illegal consideration then your premise must be found bogus
    The key determinating factor that you have (not so) cleverly omitted is the fact that the Admiral was not just offered a job,.... But that he was (according to his own words) offered a job in exchange for a political favor (namely; to drop out of a political race).

    That's a federal crime.

  7. #57
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Sestak White House scandal called 'impeachable offense'

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    then any offer of a job would have to also be considered a "bribe", thereby making all offers of federal appointments stained as illegal
    anyone who accepts federal employment is subject to the federal standards of conduct ... in this case sestak could not have been the sec of navy and also run for the senate because of those standards
    sestak would have known that
    Obama's people would have known that when the offer was made
    but that does not constitute a bribe.
    That's just not how it works. There is a huge amount of case law discussing exactly what constitutes a quid pro quo, what makes an offer "corrupt," etc.

    the offer of a federal appointment is not of itself illegal. if it is made with the expectation of consideration, then it might very well become illegal. so, what was the consideration which was requested by Obama/his staff?
    if you are unable to cite such illegal consideration then your premise must be found bogus
    The consideration is (theoretically) that Sestak would drop out of the Senate race. The consideration doesn't have to be intrinsically illegal for a quid pro quo offer to become illegal.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  8. #58
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,968

    Re: Sestak White House scandal called 'impeachable offense'

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Sure let's break it down!
    Should be fun.

    See you're here, the "voice of reason". No no, don't you silly hyper-partisans, don't you turn this into some sort of witch hunt. Leave it to the Professionals. Never mind that such would require Eric Holder to step up... or the Judiciary Committee to step up. Or the Media to discuss the issue.

    No no, Zyphlin won't be a party so such "partisan" non-sense.
    Sorry, which conservative principle am I not upholding here.....?

    Ahh yes, you covered both the Clinton and Bush scandals. Making sure no one would confuse you with those Conservatives who backed the Clinton Impeachment. You're beyond such petty things and witch hunts over sexual interactions between consenting adults.
    Actually, check my prior posts. I approve of the Clinton Impeachment. I disapprove of the non-stop political grand standing about it and the constant focus on it after the fact along with the major focus on it by Republicans while an investigation was on going and we had no definite facts yet and they were just going on assumptions.

    Also, which principle of conservatism was I breaking here again?

    And just to make sure you are well and truly seen as not a partisan Conservative, you're hedging your bets that this will be a wild goose chase and you'll be ready to say "See, I told you it would be BS"
    No, I'm being a responsible adult and not making wild accusations and judgements as if I know the absolutely truth adn facts on something that's an ongoing investigation. Which principle of conservatism was I breaking here again?

    Oh and you are also positioned to say "See, I told you to wait for the experts to handle things..." just in case it IS something. Amazing!

    I like the pop on the end, "both sides". Just to ensure no one could even remotely accuse you of being "partisan".
    Nope, I'm happy to admit, I'm a partisan conservative.

    I'm not a hyper partisan conservative. I'm not one that forgoes my principles because it helps my side. I'm not one that uses my principles only when they would benefit me or my side. I don't view everything as us vs them in all cases. But I'm definitely a partisan conservative, as I very much fall firmly on the right on almost all issues.

    But again, what conservative principle am I not upholding here?

    You are the type of Conservative that is ASHAMED of anyone that takes a solid stance, you want to be liked, you want to be seen as someone that is willing to "stand up" to those crazy fools on the right... no no, you're a "good Conservative".
    Nope, I'm happy to take a solid stance, I just don't watn to take it on unsteady ground and I'm not going to take that stance based off whether or not a (R) or a (D) is next to the name.

    I don't give a **** about being liked. Look for me in any Patriot Act thread and tell me that I'm trying to be "liked" as I have libertarians, republicans, and democrats all hating my stance on it.

    You're right, I do like to stand up to those on the right that are going against conservative principles, such as personal responsability and principled values, because I feel they do damage to the movement. I argue with them when they push things that are not what I feel is conservative in nature. Know why? Because I'm not a hyper partisan and give them a pass when they do stuff that goes against my principles just because they have an (R). You try and suggest that I do it because I want to "stand up to the right", while in reality I'm standing up for my principles regardless of the side...cause if they were a (D) saying it I'd likely say it the same way. Though I admit, at times it is more annoying seeing it on people from "my side" because like your jackass friend that gets wasted and starts mooning the club, being in the same group as people like that cause you to be looked down upon on first glance. That's bad not because I want to be "liked", its bad because I want CONSERVATISM to be liked and embraced and hyper partisans acting foolish cause the opposite to happen.

    Oh, and please, what conservative principle did the above quote of yours point out that I don't uphold?

    I see a lot of bitching about me not supporting the party and its zealots mindlessly at all times; what I didn't see is how anything I said violated any form of conservative ideology that would make me a "bad conservative".

  9. #59
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,968

    Re: Sestak White House scandal called 'impeachable offense'

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I didn't read this thread, so maybe someone has already mentioned this...but I don't think there's anything illegal here. The White House COULDN'T have offered a quid pro quo "Drop out of the race and we'll give you a job" deal. If Sestak had accepted the job, he would have been legally required to resign from Congress anyway, as per the Hatch Act. Therefore, the White House could just dangle the job in front of him, without the quid pro quo. We can argue if that is ethical, but as far as I can tell it isn't illegal.
    Assuming that was true about the legality, and I don't know enough but we'll just go with that premise for a second, that still doesn't mean that they did just dangle it rather than quid pro quo. Simply because they COULD just do that doesn't mean they did that instead of doing the quid pro quo. For example, whoever did the offer may not have even thought of that aspect of it and thus made the offer even when he didn't need to.

    Its not always a good idea to find the best way to do something and just assume that's how it went down. People are notorious for being dumb, even smart people, when they are thinking there's no real danger or problem in it.

  10. #60
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Sestak White House scandal called 'impeachable offense'

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I didn't read this thread, so maybe someone has already mentioned this...but I don't think there's anything illegal here. The White House COULDN'T have offered a quid pro quo "Drop out of the race and we'll give you a job" deal. If Sestak had accepted the job, he would have been legally required to resign from Congress anyway, as per the Hatch Act. Therefore, the White House could just dangle the job in front of him, without the quid pro quo. We can argue if that is ethical, but as far as I can tell it isn't illegal.
    There was certainly a legal way for them to make this offer, but it's also possible for it to have crossed a line in terms of legality if they laid out the quid pro quo explicitly enough. I don't know why they would have bothered to do that, which is why I don't really believe Sestak's characterization of the discussion.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •