HuffPo blogger says Rahm committed a crime

[Ned Bro]

Her name is Linda Monk. She a constitutional scholar. And, according to her, this is the law that was broken:

18 U.S.C. § 600 -- Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity


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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-r-monk-jd/rahm-is-done-its-a-crime_b_594476.html

My degree was in theology. Any lawyers here who can clarify?

[ncteechur]

1. Where was Linda Monk when everyone else was doing the exact same thing??

And it is amazing how she can make that judgement without all the facts. She is one hell of a lawyer--rivaled only by the keen medical skills of Frist when he diagnosed Terri Schiavo via videotape.

[elleng]

16. Says she's a 'constitutional scholar.' Lawyer?

[WeDidIt]

54. 'Constitutional Scholar' is usually somebody who got a JD but never passed the bar.

Look up "Andy Martin". He also claims to be a 'constitutional scholar'.

Anybody with real law experience will tell you, there was no law broken.

[elleng]

60. I'm a lawyer; I know this,

she may or may not have completed law studies. This matter has little to do with constitutional studies. And I've looked at this 'law' enough to know that, while it's arguable that 'laws were broken,' the best argument is that none were.

[shraby]

2. She's full of hockey pucks from what I've seen about the

time-line of the whole thing plus what has been written about past admins actions concerning this "problem".

[D-Lee]

62. Yup. Whole lot of ambassadorship promisors, past and present, would be in a lot of trouble ...nt

[HughMoran]

3. lame. not employment and not designed as a bribe

the intent is all wrong for this law, even though it reads as gobbledygook.

[elleng]

18. 'Intent' not mentioned in stte.

[HughMoran]

19. stte?

[elleng]

25. statute

[HughMoran]

27. yes, but as would be argued in court, laws are ALL about intent

Well, you saw the plum line article now too - this is simply absurd and I question the motives of the poster of the O/P.

[elleng]

33. Give us something to do, this holiday weekend, Hugh!

[Jennicut]

4. Doesn't the "job offer" have to actually pay something?

[elleng]

5. You mean, have to be a 'job?' Prolly!

[katandmoon]

7. The citation doesn't say that it does.

[jenmito]

12. Did anyone PROMISE Sestak anything? I don't think so.

[katandmoon]

35. Sestak was offered some unnamed "unpaid advisory board position"

That he could do while staying in the House, if he didn't run against Repug turncoat Specter.

[jenmito]

53. Yeah, it was something thrown out there and Sestak said he stopped Clinton mid-sentence. I don't

see where any "promise" was made as states must be made to break the law.

[ProSense]

13. Before the excitement sets in

Media Matters

There are opinions from lawyers included there too.

[saracat]

6. How can they fire Bill Clinton? Unless of course someone asked him to make the offer?

Maybe that sis the problem.Did Rahm ask Bill to make an offer?

[ProSense]

8. "Any lawyers here who can clarify?"

I'm not a lawyer, but the person making this claim is definitely an idiot.

[Cha]

57. Not a lawyer but you can spot an idiot when

you need to.

[Ned Bro]

9. To me, this "issue" is BS!

As though this Administration is the first in history to play quid pro quo!

PLEASE!

[JanusAscending]

38. If you feel that way.....

why did you bother to post this garbage here?

[Ikonoklast]

55. The 'concern' is overwhelming.

Another non-issue.




The OP is just trying desperately to further the right-wing spin machine talking points.


Fail.

[treestar]

10. or other benefit, it has to have compensation

and political activity or supporting or opposing a candidate is affirmative activity, not running is not affirmative activity.

[elleng]

21. 'Benefit' doesn't necessarily have to be $ compensation,

and 'NOT' doing something, while not an 'affirmative' activity, IS something, if doing the thing was expected/planned, imo. Either of these elements is arguable, I think.

[treestar]

31. It clearly says support or oppose a candidate or political activity

Compensation, contract, "or other benefit" would not include a paid position.

[Umbral]

11. HuffPo has an article up by Ken Blackwell, their credibility is just about shot. nt

[elleng]

14. So Rahm is supposed to have done what, exactly?

Promised someone(Sestak?) a government job, for the favor of (NOT running)?

Is/was rahm in position to PROVIDE the job?

[chieftain]

15. Here's the best explanation of why this is bogus.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/bush_ethics_chief_to_gop_time.html
Welcome to DU.

[Ned Bro]

20. Thank you, fellow Paddy!

O8)

(Please correct me if I'm assuming incorrectly.)

[chieftain]

29. Your welcome and your assumption is correct.

I'm 3rd generation Irish American with ancestors from County Roscommon.

[elleng]

23. Good one, from GOP ethics person!

[HughMoran]

24. Yep, "time to move on"

Issa never will, but he's a fucking idiot.

[DrToast]

32. +1

[dflprincess]

17. I think this is much ado about nothing

but I have to admit the image of Rahm in an orange jumpsuit and chains is most appealing. :evilgrin:

[Ian David]

22. Then why wasn't Reagan impeached?

PhotOh! Ronald Reagan’s super corrupt job offer to Sen. S.I. Hayakawa
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x318767

[Ned Bro]

28. St. Ronald???

Surely you jest!

:sarcasm:

[Drunken Irishman]

26. The Huffington Post has about as much credibility as the Dear John newsletters at a local college.

[DrToast]

30. Quitting a primary is not "political activity"

The law has been on the books since 1972 and nobody has ever been charge under similar circumstances.

[geckosfeet]

34. There is the law, then there is precedent. Apparently that law is so full of holes

that it is ignored with impunity. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that if the law has historically been so 'under-interpreted' (is there such a word), then it will be difficult to apply it in manner that is inconsistent with previous use.

In other words, the law has been virtually ignored by everyone. Trying to apply it vigorously now, seems impossible because of historical precedent.

Besides, we do not even know the facts of what happened - everyone is speculating on rumor and Sestaks story.

[The Magistrate]

36. Indeed, Sir: So Far, Searching For Record Of A Conviction Under This Law Yields Nothing....

[JanusAscending]

37. Tell me something....

Why is it that all of the "new" posters write op's that are meant to stir up something? ie FLAME BAIT ??It's beginning to get a little tired. We weren't born yesterday, ya know?:shrug: Just sayin'

[Ned Bro]

39. I'm sorry, sir.

I apologize for my failure to match your ideological purity, and also for (apparently) mistaking the meaning of the word "democratic."

[JanusAscending]

42. I read your profile...

too bad you didn't bother to read mine...."SIR" I'm also of Irish decent, and don't hold with those that like to "stireth up the shiteth"!! Why not just post something that is an origional thought of your own? Then I might respect your opinion ! There is nothing un democratic about calling it like I see it, or perceive it to be, now is there?

[Ned Bro]

43. Why would I bother to read the profile

of an obviously-angry man, who is clearly looking for somebody to pick a fight with?

I'll pray for you, sir.

[JanusAscending]

44. uhhh....

because I'm an elderly woman sir???? Not that I find anything wrong with being a man, if that's what you would prefer that I be? That's also why we "bother" to post our profiles. I'm neither angry nor looking for a fight. Just stating the obvious. ....but I will take all of the prayers that you'd care to supply.

[JTFrog]

59. Pretty sure this one was just reborn yesterday or the day before....

;)

[marshall]

40. Laws are broken everyday that go unprosecuted

Whether he broke the law is arguable. Less arguable is whether it will be pursued.

[LeftyAndProud60]

41. She seems to hate Rahm. By Clinton talking to Sestak, it would seem to give the WH a lot of room.

If nothing else, it would be very hard to prove in court that a crime was committed. And if it was, can we still impeach Reagan and Bush?

[Tarheel_Dem]

45. WTF is Linda Monk? Perhaps she's Oily Taintz's twin sister? Both lawyers,

and they sound equally credible. :eyes:

[TheKentuckian]

46. Better send Rahm into hiding to spend some time with the family.

I mean just to be safe. Take a break get ready to run for Mayor after a little quiet down time, it'll be good for him.

Rahm's sleepy guys, he totally needs a break.

Maybe he, Timmeh, Lardawg, Gates, and Salazar can open a yoga studio somewhere and just unwind with friends.

[cornermouse]

47. I hear Fort Leavenworth has a real nice place where they could

relax and unwind....

[Ned Bro]

50. Or

Send him to the shower room :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[Democat]

48. A blogger has posted an opinion on the internet, alert the President!

:crazy:

[Hamlette]

49. this "constitutional scholar" says she's full of it

Clinton did not make a promise for Sestak to support or oppose any candidate or party.

It doesn't take a law degree (which I have) to read.

[and-justice-for-all]

51. Did not have any problems with Reagan doing it did they?

It is most likely that the job offer was made before Sestak started running in the campaign. No harm no Faul.

[krawhitham]

52. Well if a HuffPo blogger says it then it must be true

[Milo_Bloom]

56. Recovering lawyer here.

This is one of the WORST written laws I have ever seen.

It appears, on the face of it, that the law was broken. Rahm indirectly (through Bill Clinton) offered employment/other benefit to a candidate as reward for "political activity" (dropping out of the race).

BUT

I feel as if the actual intent of the law is quite different. I feel this law really applies to situations where a politician offers a benefit to a citizen in return for SUPPORT or OPPOSITION. (eg, offering a newspaper editor a job to endorse Candidate X or run a hit piece on Candidate Y. Or, I'll give you a cushy job if you raise 100,000 for candidate Y)

[Forkboy]

58. I think the story has no legs at all, but it's fun watching some of you react to her.

"She must be like Orly Taitz!" one breathlessly exclaims. "Oh, just a blogger," others cry.

Damn, a person says something that doesn't fit into your world view and out come the hounds lol. Most of you would give your left nut (or tit, as the case may be) to have her credentials.

Shit, Tim Kaine sure liked her well enough....


Linda R. Monk, J.D., is a constitutional scholar, journalist, and nationally award-winning author. A graduate of Harvard Law School, she twice received the American Bar Association’s Silver Gavel Award, its highest honor for law-related media. Her books include The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution, Ordinary Americans: U.S. History Through the Eyes of Everyday People, and The Bill of Rights: A User’s Guide. For more than 20 years, Ms. Monk has written commentary for newspapers nationwide—including the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and Chicago Tribune.

Ms. Monk was appointed by Governor Tim Kaine to the Board of Trustees for the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation , which commemorated the 400th anniversary of the founding of Virginia in 1607. She is also on the executive committee of the Board of Trustees for the U.S. Capitol Historical Society. Her museum work includes serving as the Lead Curator for the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum in Chicago, a Visiting Scholar at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, and a consultant to the Newseum, now in Washington, D.C. She also has conducted teacher training seminars for such groups as National History Day, George Washington’s Mount Vernon Estate, the National Archives, and the National Council for the Social Studies.

http://lindamonk.com/

Honestly now, how many of you even looked her up before getting all spazzy? I bet none. And how many of you were cheering her when she wrote a glowing review of Kagen (going after Glen Greenwald in the same piece)...oh wait, none of you could be bothered to look her up so you probably don't remember it.

Elena Kagan As the Next Earl Warren

Why progressives aren't cheering for Solicitor General Elena Kagan as President Obama's next nominee for the Supreme Court is an enigma, wrapped in a mystery. She's got just the personality, intelligence, and experience to shape the Court for decades, at a time when the legislative agenda of the president is going to face the most hostile justices since FDR's court-packing days. Indeed, Kagan has the potential to become another Earl Warren in her ability to unite the Court in seminal decisions on divisive social issues.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-r-monk-jd/elana-kagan-as-the-next-e_b_538130.html

Go ahead and remind me again about how the ones are who attack Obama are just reactionaries, and those defending him are the keepers of FACTS and reason...because from where I'm sitting you all look alike to me.

[ProSense]

61. "Go ahead and remind me again about how the ones are who attack Obama are just reactionaries"

See the OP.

Your comment shows Tim Kaine likes her and that she likes Kagan.

Perhaps the brouhaha would have died out, had not President Obama offered yet another deep bow to the Emperor of Japan in November. (The Empress received a shorter bow, the depth of the bow reflecting rank in Japanese society.) Was this supposed to be a cover-up bow after the flap about the Saudi king? Whatever the reason, it now appears that President Obama will have to bow to every monarch he meets or insult somebody -- which was a big reason not to bow in the first place.

link

Bowing?

[Forkboy]

63. Let me know when you get to the point.

Because nothing you posted changed mine.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

64. Would you expect any different from the DU "reactionaries"

Rahm Emmanuel could be caught on video torturing kittens and most of them would find a way to defend it.