• 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'

he could not offer it without obama's approval. They should both be investigated.



no one expects the spanish inquisition!!!
 
It's foul - bad form no matter which side of the political ticket does it - but I doubt if much comes of this. Even if it were Rahm Emmanual, odds are he'd quietly pay the fine(s) and be done with it.

It's f'd up, but that's politics for you...strong-arm tactics and corruption at every turn. :doh
 
I hear it was Rahm Emanuel who offered Joe Sestak a job. This offense carries a sentence of 1 year in prison. I hope it was Emanuel and I hope he does time for it.

a year in prison for offering a retired admiral the position of secretary of the navy?
that won't flush
 
Please don't tell me you think only liberals are corrupt.

Of course not. Did I say that? I re-read what I wrote, and I don't see that at all.

The last democratic president in office was impeached. The next democratic president in office is now under investigation and might be impeached. I see a trend.

Was Reagan impeached? Bush Sr? Bush Jr? Nope. It seems that democratic presidents find themselves under the impeachment umbrella more often than conservative ones.

Clinton lies under oath, and to the entire nation. Gets slammed for it too. Before you say Bush lied, he wasn't impeached. Why? Because of all the liberals quoted as saying the same thing he did about Saddam Insane. Can't impeach when you repeatedly repeat back the same thing. However....this is way different. It's not about lying......to me it's way worse. This about corruption at the highest level. I can't believe it's only punishable by one year in prison. That is insane.

But.......I can't preach about the constitution if I don't want to live by it. He is innocent until proven guilty, period.
 
Last edited:
Fixed it for you and,...

I'll take that bet.

good, what's the bet?

and what makes offering a retired admiral the position of secretary of the navy an illegal act?
 
good, what's the bet?

and what makes offering a retired admiral the position of secretary of the navy an illegal act?

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?
 
How About a investigation? Want to bet Obama and the dems stop any investigation?

it should get at least the same amount of attention as the faux scandal created by the CIA to embarass Bush (as paybacks for Bush blaming the CIA for its incompetence in Iraq) known as the Plamegate.
 
it should get at least the same amount of attention as the faux scandal created by the CIA to embarass Bush (as paybacks for Bush blaming the CIA for its incompetence in Iraq) known as the Plamegate.

You have to go off topic and bring up Bush to try and save face for Obama it isn't working.
 
Here's the thing that I think is more interesting:

On the one side, you have the Democratic nominee for the Senate claiming that the White House offered him this seat if he would drop out of the race.

On the other side, you have WH officials claiming that Sestak is making this up.

Regardless of whether this constitutes a crime, someone is lying or otherwise shading the truth.
 
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.
 
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.

Much like Tom Delay confirmed that white politicians are corrupt as all hell.
 
Please Mr. V, enlighten me as to what "isn't conservative" about my position? Specifics if you would.

Sure let's break it down!


There's enough smoke, look into it. If there's some wrong doing, act. If there's not, drop it. Don't go fishing, don't go on an inquisition, don't pull dozens of people before grand juries in hopes of catching them in perjury, don't make this front page news constantly when its not even close to the conclussion phase when most of the facts are known, and don't focus on the politics of it and who it can get rid of.

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.



It was obnoxious with Lewinski and Clinton. It was obnoxious with Libby and Bush/Clinton. It will be obnoxious here and likely a similar effect.

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.

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"


Let authorities look into it, determine if there's wrong doing, and deal with it, and stop politicizing the **** out of this stuff...both sides.

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".


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".
 
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.

So if you don't trust the DoJ, the media, or other "professionals," who should be doing the investigation?
 
So if you don't trust the DoJ, the media, or other "professionals," who should be doing the investigation?

I tossed out the obstacles to this moving forward. Those uncomfortable facts that if acknowledged... might be seen as a "Partisan".

And to make sure anyone reading our discussion sees the "truth", there is an attempted to cast me as an extreme hyper-partisan so BLINDED by ideology that I don't trust anyone!

Of course, I didn't say I didn't trust them.
 
Last edited:
Much like Tom Delay confirmed that white politicians are corrupt as all hell.

What crime was Tom Delay convicted of?

Statically speaking, how many more white politicians have been convicted of criminal wrong doing, compared to black politicians? I mean, hey, when you do the numbers, my fellow African-Americans make the rest of us look like assholes.

I'm not surprised in the least when a white man refuses to do anything other than a cash deal with me.
 
What crime was Tom Delay convicted of?

What crimes were Jackson, Sharpton, or Obama convicted of?

Statically speaking, how many more white politicians have been convicted of criminal wrong doing, compared to black politicians? I mean, hey, when you do the numbers, my fellow African-Americans make the rest of us look like assholes.

Since it would be foolish to arrive at that conclusion without running the numbers yourself, why don't you link me to the tallies?

I'm not surprised in the least when a white man refuses to do anything other than a cash deal with me.

So you believe that whatever reticence they show is entirely due to your skin color?

Rather than label an entire group of people as racist, I think I'll adopt the simpler solution and say there's probably something about you or your business that leads people to operate in that fashion, if they do indeed do so.
 
Last edited:
What crimes were Jackson, Sharpton, or Obama convicted of?

Skeleton Closet - Al Sharpton, The Dark Side

JESSE JACKSON'S CRIMINAL TIES





Since it would be foolish to arrive at that conclusion without running the numbers yourself, why don't you link me to the tallies?

I would love for you to. Please, be statiscally accurate.



So you believe that whatever reticence they show is entirely due to your skin color?

Rather than label an entire group of people as racist, I think I'll adopt the simpler solution and say there's probably something about you or your business that leads people to operate in that fashion, if they do indeed do so.

Welcome to the real world.
 

I ask you for the crimes that Obama, Sharpton and Jackson have been convicted of and you link me to two websites I've never heard of that cite claims that Sharpton and Jackson did something bad back in the day?

I know you know what "convicted" means, so I'm confused as to why you think that was responsive.

I would love for you to. Please, be statiscally accurate.

Uh, what? Reread your post and then reread mine. You're the one making unfounded claims about the rate of criminality of black politicians v. white, not me. I wouldn't make those claims because I don't know the numbers. Do you?

Welcome to the real world.

Again, nonresponsive.
 
I'm a member of a different message board where people would get a probation for such posting. Just sayin. ;)

But if we handed out warnings for every post that didn't deal with the issue at hand, then who would be left to populate the Palin=Nazi/Obama=Criminal threads?
 
Should the White House to stay out of party primaries and focus on the tasks at hand? Yes, in an ideal world. This, however, is nothing new and it hardly rises to the level of a major ethics controversy. The allegation that the job offer was somehow a “bribe” in return for Sestak not running in the primary is difficult to support. Sestak, if he had taken a job in the Administration, would not have been permitted to run in the Pennsylvania primary. The Hatch Act prohibits a federal employee from being a candidate for nomination or election to a partisan political office. 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(3). He had to choose one or the other, but he could not choose both.


The job offer may have been a way of getting Sestak out of Specter’s way, but this also is nothing new. Many candidates for top Administration appointments are politically active in the President’s political party. Many are candidates or are considering candidacy in primaries. White House political operatives don’t like contentious fights in their own party primaries and sometimes suggest jobs in the Administration for persons who otherwise would be contenders. For the White House, this is usually a “win-win” situation, giving the Administration politically savvy appointees in the Executive Branch and fewer contentious primaries for the Legislative Branch. This may not be best for voters who have less choice as a result, and Sestak thus should be commended for saying “no”. The job offer, however, is hardly a “bribe” when it is one of two alternatives that are mutually exclusive.
 
Back
Top Bottom