I knew it was coming. Morning Joe and co is implying the WH broke the law by bribing Sestak

[LeftyAndProud60]

next up will be the impeachment hearings. Especially if Issa has his way. Did the Dems ever investigate Bush for anything?

[ShortnFiery]

1. With respect, if democrats would stop watching that smarmy show, they'd go off of the air.

:shrug:

[vi5]

8. Save your keystrokes...

I've been saying this for as many years as this shitty show as been on, which is exactly as long as the breathless posts inundating the latest page every morning yelling at their every utterance.

It is the political equivalent of pro-wrestling fans. Trying to actually talk sense into them and explain why their time would be better spent elsewhere is futile. Which would be fine it it were an entertainment thing, but these people all seem to believe they're watching something important and doing us all some great service by posting about everything that happens on that stupid show.

[CTyankee]

23. I know, I know, and I'm one of your worst offenders but let me try to defend us.

It's true that we have a strange fascination, but it really isn't that awful. The fact of the matter is that the show has some interesting guests and some, like me, just shut the effer off when a real RW asshole is coming on. I am caught up in the Blumenthal saga because of the huge hatchet job that has been done on a real progressive and I think that's important. This thing with Sestak is interesting and I watched that episode while it was being argued back and forth. We get the talking points of the other side and we get to know what's in play for the day. Plus, the good guests he has on are REALLY good: Elizabeth Warren, Anthony Weiner (who was on today), Lawrence O'Donnell, Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer (I rejoiced when she shut Mika down so well back during the campaign!), Eugene Robinson (who is a delight), and many others.

You may not like it but these are important spokespersons from our point of view and Ilike being kept up to date on what's going on. But I watch it sparingly and, in any case, the TV goes off at 8 a.m. I then read two newspapers and go on line to find out what DU is up to.

In fact, DU might be another one of those strange fascinations...come to think about it...

[OHdem10]

2. Issa, Rep. has been on this since the comment was first made

during Sestakek campaign.

[zulchzulu]

3. Actually Pat Puke Cannon said Sestak "is going to have to walk the cat back"

That means Sestak opened his big mouth and now could be investigated for being offered a bribe at the time and NOT reporting it until months later.

Sestak needs to fall in line or expect some Greyhound bus tire marks on his political head.

[LeftyAndProud60]

5. Sestak has issues. I liked him at first, but he kinda seems like an asshole. He should've known

better than to ever say that in public. He said it because it helped him politically. He's a selfish lil bastard.

[Phx_Dem]

16. I agree. His acceptance speech was a real turnoff for me. And now this.

He sounds like an asshole.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. I doubt that this is going away and will probably become larger.

I saw Sestak on Face the Nation and Bob Schieffer asked him about this - as will every single talking head until the end of time.

Sestak tried to brush by it but he did say, "I have answered that questionly honestly before" or words very close to that, in effect saying that he is sticking by his story.

This has the potential to blow up into something very big and out of control. The situation is "influence peddling" or bribery. It's all about EXACTLY how the offer was made. If someone was stupid enough to say explicitly Sestak "if you step down we will make you Secretary of the Navy" then there is a big big problem. If someone just called him up and said, "You know, we think you would make a good Secretary of the Navy, but we need your committment by next week", then that is something totally different.

I saw Gibbs on some talking head show and when he was asked about it, he said, "we have had the lawyers review what happened and nothing improper happened."

I take two lessons away from this.

#1 - The White House should not have been attempting to influence the PA primary in any to clear the path for Spector. Why not just support him and let the voters make the final determination? Any attempts to muscle Sestak out of the race were unseemly and unDemocratic, and they picked the wrong guy. Who knows how far the cajoling and/or intimidation went? Whoever the "messenger" was with the carrots/sticks will probably need to resign to spend more time with their family.

#2- The Republicans will call for investigations, impeachments, at the drop of a hat for ANYTHING that occurs on a Democrats' watch and the Democrats will avoid same for EVERYTHING on a Republican's watch. It would be nothing but the most supreme irony in the world if an Obama administration is brought down or damaged by this when the Bush administration escaped multiples of far worse crimes by the Obama administration giving them a pass for everything.

[fugop]

6. We'll see

The Republicans will call for investigations, impeachments, at the drop of a hat for ANYTHING that occurs on a Democrats' watch

Yep. They'll be looking and working on it until 2012. Worked out so well for them against Clinton, right?

[LeftyAndProud60]

7. That impeachment helped Bush get elected. NT.

[fugop]

10. Except ...

Gore ran away from Clinton. Far, far away. We'll never know how the election would have gone had Gore used Clinton and all the things of which people approved. So I still say, in the words of Dubya, bring it on. My belief is that the more the GOP tries to smear Obama, the more people will see them for what they are. We'll see.

[karynnj]

9. Of the two lessons, I think that while I agree with the second, in this case it is an overstatement

The fact is that the Obama administration can offer anyone a position. It is not illegal, nor is it a bribe. As to reason, I would assume that it was more because Sestak WAS harmed by Specter changing parties and getting the support that was thought to make him an absolute shoe in for the nomination. At that point, the very likely winner was Specter. As the party had supported a Sestak run earlier offering him an administration position that he 100% qualified for not only reasonable, but fair.

[Pirate Smile]

11. Sestak was really friggin stupid to say what he did. Just dumb. The WH would have

preferred he stay in the House and keep his seat safe for Dems. If he was leaving the House, they were supporting Specter - no surprise. If he was leaving the House, they certainly have jobs in the Administration that he is qualified for and they need to fill - Big.Fucking.Deal.

[PassingFair]

17. The VOTERS are supposed to decide who represents them.

I could give a rat's ass what the WH wants.

Why do we bother with elections AT ALL if
the candidates are all hand picked?

The White House stepped in it with RAHM tactics.

[totodeinhere]

22. Yes, how stupid of him to tell the truth.

We need more politicians like Sestak who tell it like it is rather than making a political calculation about every least little thing. He is going to make a great senator and IMO he will be rising star in the Democratic Party.

[Inuca]

29. I doubt it, but we shall see

Short term, I think that he will make a safer candidate for Fall than Specter. Longer term... I don't know... I just cannot get warmed up to him ....

[golfguru]

52. Honesty trumps lies every day of week

in my book any way. Sestak has the potential to be a great senator.

[Yavin4]

12. Broke What Law?

What law was broken? Offering someone a job is breaking the law? Morning Moron is an idiot of the highest order.

[and-justice-for-all]

13. I agree..

and I am not buying this shit either.

[MidwestRick]

20. It's a crime...

if someone in the White House offered Sestak a job if the job offer interfered with or affected the nomination or the election of any candidate running for the Senate.

-MR

[treestar]

24. What law?

Adults can reject job offers.

[Cosmocat]

26. Seriously ... SOMEONE post the LAW ...

the language that this somehow is in offense to ...

[jberryhill]

42. Not gonna happen

See the lame attempt downthread.

There is a law against taking bribes from people seeking positions in the executive branch, and some idiot thinks he found it...

[Inuca]

30. I seriously doubt it n/t

[jberryhill]

31. Please cite the US Code section

Thank you.

[marshall]

27. I agree, it may look bad, but I don't see how it breaks the law

It's the same story as Blagojevich. There's no law against selling a Senate seat to the highest bidder, it just looks bad.

This too shall pass.

[harkadog]

33. Title 18, Chapter 11, Section 211 of the United States Code

Whoever crime to offer a job to get out of a federal election. It reads: “Whoever solicits or receives … any….thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

The problem is that the current WH is run by people from Chicago. They are used to offering money and jobs to affect political races in Chicago and Illinois. They didn't realize that it is a crime when doing it at the federal level.

[jberryhill]

35. That Statute Is Not Even Relevant To The Alleged Facts

Asking someone to drop out of a race to take an appointment elsewhere is not even within the language of this statute.

You do realize that in order to become DHS secretary, someone had to say to Tom Ridge, "Hey, would you consider quitting as governor of Pennsylvania in order to become DHS secretary."

This law is about selling appointments for some kind of personal gain, and has absolutely nothing to do with the situation alleged relative to Sestak. Nobody was asking for "a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value" in exchange for him taking an appointment elsewhere and considering dropping his candidacy.

[harkadog]

37. If someone the WH favored was running for PA governor

against Ridge it would be a violation. Despite what you say the WH knows this now and that it why Gibbs refuses to answer any more questions about it. Prosecutors are not media people however and are not as easily put off.

[jberryhill]

38. No it would not be a violation

Who offered who a political contribution, personal emolument or thing of value in exchange for securing a position in the executive branch.

Please match up the facts with the elements of the statute.

This will be amusing...

[harkadog]

41. Ahhh I was not part of the WH talking to Sestak

Or do you think Sestak is lying about the conversation? Gibbs and others have clammed up as an attorney has told them too. Trouble is they won't let you do that to a grand jury. You may find this amusing now but the WH who is smarter than you does not.

[jberryhill]

43. No, I don't think Sestak is lying

But what I can also quite clearly see is that you do not know how to read a statute and apply the facts to it.

Nice dodge.

I take the Sestak statement as a given here. It still does not add up to a violation of the statute you have identified.

[harkadog]

44. If the WH clams up and won't give the content of the conversations

How can anyone know the "facts". Even "facts" as given by the WH. When they give their facts Sestak will confirm it or not. Then we can see if there is a match or not. I hope you are not anywhere near the legal field.

[jberryhill]

45. Yes, I'm an attorney

And you clearly don't know how to assess a claim, nor state one.

First - take everything Sestak has said as true.

Second - apply the facts of his statement to the elements of the statute.

Then you ask yourself - Do the facts as alleged constitute a violation?

The simple answer here is that they don't.

So, thrill me... explain where a violation is ALLEGED to have happened under this statute.

[harkadog]

46. What don't you get about this?

Sestak has not said who made the offer, what the circumstances of the conversation was and what the job was. The WH has said nothing to see here move on. When we know what both sides said and who said them then we can fit the facts to any statutes involved. That is what is known in the business as an investigation. If this was a low profile race probably nothing would come of it but this is a high profile race watched by the media. The answers will have to come out sooner or later.

[jberryhill]

48. It doesn't matter who made the offer

The offer is not, under the statute you cited, an illegal act.

It is not illegal for the administration to offer anyone a job.

It is illegal for anyone in the administration to take a bribe for offering a job, and it is illegal for someone to pay a bribe for taking a job in the administration. That's the statute you cited.

The point is, if the Obama administration offered Sestak a job in order to remove him as a candidate against Specter - THAT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

You might as well claim it was illegal to remove Janet Napolitano from AZ state politics.

And, again, determining whether a claim has been stated does not require information from both sides.

There has to be facts from at least one side that constitute the elements of the offense, and you don't seem to be grasping that at all.

Yes, an accusation has been made, and all of the relevant communication records are being gathered.

But how about you propose even a hypothetical set of facts here which would result in a claim being stated under this statute.

And, by the way, if you want to refer to 18 USC 211, then you can just say "18 USC 211".

[harkadog]

51. You don't need to lecture me on how to cite U.S. Code

This is not a board for lawyers so I generally don't use shorthand when citing a code. Sorry if that offends you but I guess you were the guy who was that nerd in law school. At first glance I thought 18 USC 211 would apply and I still do depending on the circumstances the WH is currently hiding. What certainly would apply are 18 USC 599 and 600. If everything is as ok and fine as you say what is the WH hiding? The other day Gibss refused to answer 13 separate questions giving 'move along, nothing to see here' type of answers.

[jberryhill]

54. Still wrong wrong wrong

599 deals with a promise of appointment BY A CANDIDATE for the purpose of securing support.

This is a deal where the candidate says "if you support my run for president, I will make you Secretary of State"

It's no wonder you don't post the text, so that the utter silliness of your argument is clear.

----

Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

-----

600 is equally inapplicable. It applies to promising employment in exchange for political activity on behalf of a candidate. Again, there are no facts alleged which suggest that. Sestak was being offered a job, which would necessitate the withdrawal of his own candidacy, and not for support or opposition to someone else's candidacy.

Yeah, I was that "nerd in law school" who learned to read statutes. Your law school obviously didn't have enough nerds, or was a peculiar law school in which people who did things like, oh, "study law" were odd.

But if you are going to just throw out statutes a random from here on in, you are going to have to state how the alleged facts apply to them. I guess I'm sort of nerdy that way.

[harkadog]

56. You have the advantage of a WH who is taking the Nixonion stonewalling approach.

That didn't work then and their refusal to answer questions won't now. When that wall is broken we will see how the facts fit the statutes. You are twisting your version of the facts into a political pretzel so they won't fit the statute as you portray it. What is your explanation of why Gibbs starts to grimace and stutter when he is asked these questions? Maybe a better lawyer than you has talked to him.

[jberryhill]

57. "twisting your version of the facts" Lol

Dude, I asked you for a proposed set of facts that would fit any statute you care to cite.

Yeah, someone asked Gibbs a question relating to ordinary political negotiation, with a clear legal agenda.

But "stutter and grimace" as you perceive it, does not translate into facts of any sort. I'm asking you to make an allegation of any kind, given the timeline, that would make out a claim here.

Oh, oh... I see how it works. You are saying that you have no facts that resemble a claim under any of these statutes, so the administration needs to dance to your tune because, by God, we'll find something if they quit "stonewalling".

Yeah, I read the birther threads at Freeperville all of the time. They have the same problem. The sheet music is pretty much the same for this opera.

But, as a friend, let me tell you that your arguments would be much more effective without the personal commentary. But I'm quite happy to name a much better lawyer than me, who would have been in on his scheme from the beginning - Barack Obama. I'll name another better lawyer than me, with decades of experience in election law, and who would be an indispensible part of any political calculation involving the Senate - Joe Biden. And those two facts alone should clue you in to the level of appreciation for anything that might smell like a violation from a mile away.

But, come on, let's see you state your version of the facts, and fit them to a statute. Your version is.... what?

[jberryhill]

55. And on your other point

I see you favor the birther argument of "what is he hiding?" if your pet question isn't answered. That is a bogus line of argument.

[golfguru]

53. No law probably broken...it is refusing to admit WH quid pro quo

May be voters in PA did not appreciate lack of candor and honesty.

[jenmito]

14. George Will, no liberal (to say the least) said on "This Week" yesterday that this is

NOTHING. No matter who tries to make it into a deal, it's NOT anything that can turn into anything problematic.

[tomm2thumbs]

18. it certainly smells bad, in as much as George says it's part of politics, we hoped for change in DC

Sestak was pretty clear when you look at his various appearances Sunday. He admits to the job offer (I think most clearly on Face the Nation) but won't talk about specifics. I'll give him credit for being forthright, but this is going to stick to the White House like gulf oil to a seabird.

Let's stop the political game-playing, the backroom job deals, special deals for certain states in healthcare, etc. Just stop this sh*t because you give the GOP ammunition for the fall and beyond.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Yep....Democrats need to stop doing something like offering a job.....

in fact, they should be scared to do or say anything about everything,
just in case the media takes it and runs with it and makes it appear like it is a
capital offense. Yes, Democrats should be running scared about this,
like they do about everything else. Bush could do what in the fuck he wanted to,
and Obama offers a job, and he's in hot water. That some real disparity there!

[tomm2thumbs]

21. if that is somehow a defense of offering a job quid pro quo to someone to leave the race

I don't quite understand the defense

If Bush offered a job to a senatorial candidate to get them to leave a race against a politician they preferred, we'd be all over it. The fact that Sestak admits it now shows that there is no defense for the action - it was politics 'as usual' - the stuff we were told was not going to occur in Washington any longer.

But I'd love to hear your actual defense of a US President offering someone a high-level job to leave the race in a state election. I'd really love to hear a logical defense of it.

[Cosmocat]

28. Sorry ...

I could have given a rats tail if Bush offered a job in theory to someone to keep them from running in another race ...

Again, he was a PROSPECTIVE candidate ... He hadn't filed papers, yet ... Heck, he could have been posturing to get the job (not saying that was what he was doing, but if people are speculating ...)

Seriously, it is amazing how quickly dems can get sucked into chasing their own tails ...

Cheney outed a god darned undercover CIA operative, and every R on the planet defended it to the death ...

The white house may have offered a PROSPECTIVE congressional candidate a cabinet position and dems are sounding like Pukes over it ...

BO brought in governors from countless states to be in his cabinet, he put Joe Biden on his VP ticket ... Effected those elections ...

And, it ain't exactly Brownie running FEMA either, or offering Sestak to be the commissioner of MLB or something ... The man would to nearly any list for the job ...

[jberryhill]

36. Tom Ridge

Asked to quit being governor of PA to take the position of DHS secretary.

Hillary Clinton - asked to abandon her senate seat to become Secretary of State

Janet Napolitano....

This is normal trading up.

[Arkana]

39. No, this is crap.

If Bush had offered a job to a Senate candidate in a primary against one of his own, I wouldn't have given two shits. Neither would the rest of the world.

Sorry, but that line doesn't work in this situation.

[OhioBlue]

59. you're kidding right? I couldn't have cared less

which Republican George offered a job to - they all sucked.

No - we had actual issues to be pissed about rather than constant faux outrage.

[tomm2thumbs]

60. trying to get a genuine Democrat out of the race for a GOP convenience 'convert' smells of Rahm

that is the problem here - when moderates, recent GOP Bush-skies are given deals to run against the genuine article, I call foul.

Luckily, the good people of PA saw through Specter's lie-transformation

[Cha]

32. The vultures are trying to make it seem bad which

is a good sign that everything is above board.

[jberryhill]

58. Lol

Well, that's one way to analyze the situation. And pretty much the easy way to understand it.

[harkadog]

34. Unfortunely for the WH Will is not a U.S. prosecutor.

[Arkana]

15. Yawn.

The White House didn't break any laws.

[AllentownJake]

25. Joe saying that is one of the reasons I voted for Arlen nt

[kiranon]

40. No crime in saying to Joe that he might be happier in another job given the

polarization in the Senate where he would be one out of a 100 Senators. And, that he could be more effective in some other position. It's a suggestion based on reality not a bribe. It is not a crime to give advice to someone unsure of what role he wishes to play in the future. It is giving options and perfectly legal.

[greencharlie]

47. why is illegal to say

"We're backing Arlen here... why don't you accept a job as Navy Admiral?"

I don't get it...

[jberryhill]

49. It is not

Notice the absence of any cited statute from the discussion.

One brave soul in the thread above has cited a statute under which it is illegal to pay or take bribes in exchange for federal jobs. He does not understand that "thing of value" in that statute refers to a tangible thing of calculable value, and not political advantage.

This person would probably believe it is illegal for the administration to offer top jobs to Democrats, because that would advance a political agenda.

But you ask the most salient question.

You don't "get it" because there is nothing here to "get".

[Aramchek]

50. this is the same crap you were peddling last week. nobody's buying.

[enough already 2]

61. Sestak screwed the pooch on this one big time

I think he just tossed that line out there as a Hail Mary when he was miles behind Specter hoping something would stick. He's going to get called on it by the pukes every day until November now. He's still miles better than that neanderthal Toomey and I'll be voting for him, but I don't know how he puts this shit back in the horse.

[HCE1947]

62. Identify Emanuel, remove him, and move on

Look, when President Obama hired Rahm Emanuel, the president fully comprehended that Emanuel carried significant baggage with him.

From all reports, Emanuel is the one who made the offer to Sestak. That offer was inappropriate, although not illegal. This is politics, and job offers like that happen regularly.

However, Emanuel wanted to remove Sestak so that the White House's buddy Arlen would coast to victory (and them lose decisively to Toomey in the fall).

The White House has made a significant mistake, and they must own up to it. Sestak was offended by the offer, as he should have been. This is not change that we can believe in.

Sestak should beat Toomey in November, but he has to get this behind him and soon. The White House has to take Rahm to the woodshed, and then force him to submit his resignation.

Remember, Emanuel was the one who tried to talk Obama out of pursuing health care -- and scuttled the public option. He is truly a DINO.

Obama needs his resignation.