• 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!

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:
ptif219 said:
It was a bribe to get him not to run for office
Click to expand...

show me the money .... without such consideration, without any indication of a bribe how can there then be a crime?
 
RightinNYC said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
RightinNYC said:
So if you don't trust the DoJ, the media, or other "professionals," who should be doing the investigation?
Click to expand...

Hand picked witch hunters, of course. You didn't know that? :mrgreen:
 
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

RightinNYC said:
Much like Tom Delay confirmed that white politicians are corrupt as all hell.
Click to expand...

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.
 
justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
justabubba said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
MrVicchio said:
Sure let's break it down!
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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"
Click to expand...

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".
Click to expand...

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".
Click to expand...

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".
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Chuz Life said:
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.
Click to expand...

for this to be a valid charge then it must have been possible for sestak to accept the appointment to the position of secretary of the navy while simultaneously running for the senate
under the law that could not happen
he was given an opportunity to accept the secretary of the navy position
that acceptance - his own decision to accept that position - would have caused him to no longer be able to run for elected office
that was nothing more than a consequence of his choosing to accept the offered position

go here Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses
and then page 134
and read the following:
As with Section 606, the Criminal Division believes that Sections 600 and 601 were not intended to reach the consideration of political factors in the hiring or termination of the small category of senior public employees who perform policymaking or confidential duties for elected officials of federal, state, or local governments. With respect to such employees, a degree of political loyalty may be considered a necessary aspect of competent performance.
Click to expand...
the government does not find such offers of positions in the federal sector to fall within the intent of the law, which is to ferret out and prosecute quid pro quo circumstances ... such consideration is not to be found in this instance
 
justabubba said:
for this to be a valid charge then it must have been possible for sestak to accept the appointment to the position of secretary of the navy while simultaneously running for the senate
under the law that could not happen
he was given an opportunity to accept the secretary of the navy position
that acceptance - his own decision to accept that position - would have caused him to no longer be able to run for elected office
that was nothing more than a consequence of his choosing to accept the offered position

go here Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses
and then page 134
and read the following:
the government does not find such offers of positions in the federal sector to fall within the intent of the law, which is to ferret out and prosecute quid pro quo circumstances ... such consideration is not to be found in this instance
Click to expand...

No one ever specified what office or job was offered to the Admiral,...

You are posting a red herring.

And whether or not he could have accepted the job offer is a seperate issue. Offering a government job for political favor or leverage (as the Admiral himself implicated the Obama admin) is a federal crime.

In my opinion, his allegation warrants further investigation.
 
Chuz Life said:
No one ever specified what office or job was offered to the Admiral,...

You are posting a red herring.

And whether or not he could have accepted the job offer is a seperate issue. Offering a government job for political favor or leverage (as the Admiral himself implicated the Obama admin) is a federal crime.

In my opinion, his allegation warrants further investigation.
Click to expand...

it has been widely speculated that the offered position was that of secretary of the navy
do you think it would have been a lesser position which would not have fallen under the guidelines posted above? if so, why?

whether he could have accepted the job offer is exactly the issue. no one needed to say to him, if you accept this offer you must get out of the senate race. it would have been obvious that he could not both accept the offered position and continue to run for federal office. one or the other was his choice to make - not the president's

you want there to be taint so badly where there is none that you insist on believing it is there anyway
 
justabubba said:
it has been widely speculated that the offered position was that of secretary of the navy do you think it would have been a lesser position which would not have fallen under the guidelines posted above? if so, why?
Click to expand...

Again,... it has no relevence or bearing on the charge. If he was offered the job of dog catcher to drop out of the Senate Race,... that would be a crime.

The specifics of job offered has no relevance to the charge.

justabubba said:
whether he could have accepted the job offer is exactly the issue. no one needed to say to him, if you accept this offer you must get out of the senate race. it would have been obvious that he could not both accept the offered position and continue to run for federal office. one or the other was his choice to make - not the president's
Click to expand...

It was Sestak's allegation that the White House tried to buy him out of the Senate race.... whether they needed to or not is (again) secondary to the fact that Sestak claims they did. And it is the attempt to sell a government position that is the crime.... the attempt does not need to succeed in order for the crime to have been committed.

It's the attempt itself that is the crime.

justabubba said:
you want there to be taint so badly where there is none that you insist on believing it is there anyway
Click to expand...

I'm just taking admiral Sestak at his word,...

YouTube- Sestak Stands By Claim White House Offered Him Job
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's true, but even if someone intended to offer a quid pro quo, I don't think it's a crime since a quid pro quo couldn't have possibly existed. If you do something legal which you believe is a crime (for example, if you smoke at age 18 when you incorrectly believe the smoking age is 21), you aren't prosecuted for it. So I would think the same thing would apply here.
 
Kandahar said:
That's true, but even if someone intended to offer a quid pro quo, I don't think it's a crime since a quid pro quo couldn't have possibly existed. If you do something legal which you believe is a crime (for example, if you smoke at age 18 when you incorrectly believe the smoking age is 21), you aren't prosecuted for it. So I would think the same thing would apply here.
Click to expand...

And here,... I was constantly reminded in school and at home.... that "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
 
Chuz Life said:
And here,... I was constantly reminded in school and at home.... that "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Click to expand...

ok, prove that you are not ignorant about the law. point out the bases which will be uses to bring criminal charges
 
RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

It apears that wasn't the way the offer was made...

In the statement, White House counsel Robert Bauer admits that the White House was trying to clear the political field for Specter. But Bauer says Sestak was never offered the job of Secretary of the Navy; instead, Sestak was offered only an unpaid position on a presidential advisory board. In return for the unpaid advisory position, Sestak would stay in the House of Representatives and not challenge Specter.
Click to expand...

Read more at the Washington Examiner: GOP: White House Sestak story not believable | Washington Examiner

Note the statement was by "White House counsel". Note the Quid Pro Quo. The law covering this says nothing about cash having to change hands.... just you do this and I'll do that.

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.
Click to expand...

Crimes and Criminal Procedure - 18 USC Section 600 - US Code

Check out the White House statement.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/Sestak Memorandum.pdf


In the 4th paragraph, 1st sentence, Bob Bauer admits to the crime and admits what Sestak has been saying is acurate. A crime has been commited, now, will justice be done?







Don't bet on it.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
White House memo responding to the situation:
http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/Sestak Memorandum.pdf

Sestak corroborates much of that memo:
Sestak: 'I Said No' When Clinton Offered | TPMDC

Sestak's phraseology in this memo makes it sound far less shady.

edit: Although I'm sure conservatives here will dismiss the White House memo without even reading it.
Click to expand...


It is also interesting to note this:

Update: Melanie Sloan, head of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told Rich Sisk just now that she sees no problem with this arrangement.

“It’s just politics,” said Sloan. “Republicans are just making political hay with this while they can.

CREW, which has fired off dozens of complaints on a range of issues against Democrats and Republicans with the House and Senate Ethics Committees in the past, will not be filing against Sestak, Sloan said.

“CREW thinks this is ridiculous,” Sloan said. “To have a bribe, you have to exchange an official act for a thing of value,” said Sloan, a lawyer. “Not running for the Senate is not an official act,” Sloan said, “so it can’t be a bribe. Literally, no law has been broken.”
Click to expand...

Read more: Clinton Made Sestak a Proper Offer, White House Says

CREW has a reputation for being sticklers and they file complaints against both Republicans and Democrats.

Congressional Ethics | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
 
Chuz Life said:
And here,... I was constantly reminded in school and at home.... that "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Click to expand...

Right...if you break the law because you believe it's legal, you'll be prosecuted. But if you DON'T break the law even when you believe you are, then you aren't prosecuted.

As far as I can tell, there's no way that a quid pro quo could have existed, which means no crime was committed even if someone (incorrectly) offered the job as a quid pro quo.
 
Last edited:
Gina said:
It is also interesting to note this:



Read more: Clinton Made Sestak a Proper Offer, White House Says

CREW has a reputation for being sticklers and they file complaints against both Republicans and Democrats.

Congressional Ethics | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Click to expand...

Actually the majority of the things they file complaints too are Republicans, and democrats who have republican vlaue. And are mostly attacking the ones who oppose Crew, so basically they are having the same thing done to them.

Watchdog, Donors Share Common Foes - Roll Call

However I don't mind that their is a watchdog group it is just that they aren't truly bipartisan when they go for mostly democrats with some Republican values.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Right...if you break the law because you believe it's legal, you'll be prosecuted. But if you DON'T break the law even when you believe you are, then you aren't prosecuted.

As far as I can tell, there's no way that a quid pro quo could have existed, which means no crime was committed even if someone (incorrectly) offered the job as a quid pro quo.
Click to expand...

I do not understand what is so difficult to understand.

Sestak said the White House offerred him a job TO PULL OUT OF THE RACE WITH SPECTER.

THAT IS PLAINLY A CRIME UNDER 18 USC 600.

I will keep posting the following until you lefties succumb.
Sestak is his and Obama's worst enemy in this.
It does not matter what type of job either.
There was a job offerred to him to leave the race.

From the guy who broke the story: Larry Kane.
The Larry Kane Report
MAY 28,2010

“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.”

I prepared for the program with an outline of questions. But on that Thursday I was having a very hectic day. I was a little overwhelmed with work. I forgot to put the question in my outline. Suddenly, with 90 seconds left, I remembered!

The news business can have moments that are so unpredictable. I knew the questionwas a good one, based on some really good sources, but I was flabbergasted when Sestak said “Yes.” There was no hesitation. No delay. He just said, “Yes.”

As the Congressman left the building, there was an obvious dilemma. The show wouldn’t are till Sunday the 21st. The story could be big. I called Comcast executes. With their blessing, I broke the story with an audio interview on KYW Newsradio. But first there was work to do. I needed a White House response.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom