Sestak’s Job Options
[Guest post by DRJ]
Yesterday we learned that former President Bill Clinton was the go-between who made Rep. Joe Sestak a job offer he could refuse. But yesterday was also the day White House attorney Bob Bauer released a statement that more than one job opportunity was dangled for Sestak’s consideration:
“Top White House lawyer Robert Bauer conceded that “options for Executive Branch service were raised” for Sestak, but insisted that administration officials did not act improperly. He characterized the attempt to influence Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate primary — ultimately won by Sestak — as no different from political maneuvers by past administrations from both political parties.
***
Bauer stated in the memo that efforts “were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity.”Sestak would not have been paid for any advisory work, Bauer insisted.
Emanuel “enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with … Sestak options of service,” Bauer said. Sestak declined the suggested options, he said.”
What were the other job options, Mr. Bauer? And why was Rep. Sestak ineligible for the unpaid job Clinton admitted to yesterday?
— DRJ
Ah yes…. the old “Everyone else has done it.” defense.
let me know how that w*rks out for you Chief.
Maxwell Smart (fb8750) — 5/29/2010 @ 10:32 amWhat is so wonderful about this “flap” is that folks like you are grasping at the straws so hard. Risible. Then you’ll try something else.
Larry Reilly (fadcab) — 5/29/2010 @ 11:03 amBTW, why couldn’t Obama have simply started a war somewhere? It would chill various pockets of political heat, and as we now know from the wisdom of W, revealed this week, wars are how America works itself out of difficult economic times. Works like a charm, apparently.
Another incoherent screed from Larry Reilly, showing that criminal conduct by the White House is just “straws”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/29/2010 @ 11:05 amAin’t the Life o’Reilly grand?
Seriously, Larry… you’d better queue up with the rest of the ‘rats… the SS Obama is taking on water and will not remain buoyant for long.
GeneralMalaise (67df13) — 5/29/2010 @ 11:25 am… and, anyway, he said he wasn’t interested in intel …
Neo (7830e6) — 5/29/2010 @ 11:27 am“Ah yes…. the old “Everyone else has done it.” defense.”
I expected this to be reaction. I think ‘everyone else does it’ works only if it means that the complained of activity is actually not a problem — which is actually the case here. That’s different than the ‘two wrongs makes a right’ argument.
pizzathehut (7de3b7) — 5/29/2010 @ 11:41 amignoring, of course, the clear violation of of several USC’s relating to bribery, which, unlike enterint a Federal Building to prove a US Senator is lying to her constituents, are felonies.
it must be a wonderful world you live in.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 5/29/2010 @ 11:55 am“ignoring, of course, the clear violation of of several USC’s relating to bribery”
You don’t have to ignore it. You can just think about it:
“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.”
http://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2010/05/joe-sestaks-bribe-scandal-another-ethics-sideshow.html
So you see, it’s not a bribe because it doesn’t induce him to not run for senate. It actually prohibits him from running for senate.
pizzathehut (2b5cca) — 5/29/2010 @ 12:06 pmOh yeah… I’m always up for those “unpaid” jobs… you know:
Unpaid job or Senator? Always opt for the unpaid job out in the political outback rather than a run for Senate against a quisling
Who believes that anyone would offer a man with the ambitiousness to run for Senate a job in some political backwater from which he could never run again for anything… and he’d take it?
Nah.
This smells like a bad lie
Steve G (7d4c78) — 5/29/2010 @ 1:04 pmAs someone may have already pointed out, they chose the one fellow – Bill “The Fabulist” Clinton – known to have absolutely no qualms about lying under oath to close the Circle of Utter Contempt for the Truth.
The entire clusterf%#@ is laughably implausible.
GeneralMalaise (67df13) — 5/29/2010 @ 1:12 pmpizzathehut:
The jobs they offered were unpaid positions. Yet, as you note, Sestak would not have been able to keep a federal job — which means he also would not be able to continue his job as a Congressman and he wouldn’t have any income.
If this is true, you’re right that it’s not a bribe but it’s stupid. Is that the story you’re sticking with?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/29/2010 @ 1:49 pmSo you see, it’s not a bribe because it doesn’t induce him to not run for senate.
Huh? That’s quite a rationalization. If you’re going to tap dance, you should say the quid-pro-quo wasn’t so unseemly because the option offered to Sestak didn’t involve any financial gain.
As for the apparent job offer (or offers) — as claimed by the current White House — not being realistic or believable? Since folks on the left tend to feel warm and snuggly when people are dependent on government handouts, it’s possible they thought Sestak having to survive on unemployment benefits for awhile would be a wonderful opportunity for him.
Mark (411533) — 5/29/2010 @ 2:00 pm“If this is true, you’re right that it’s not a bribe but it’s stupid. Is that the story you’re sticking with?”
It wouldn’t be a bribe even if it was a paid job, like, say, an abassadorship. Stupid? That i don’t know see how. Seems rather clever — offer him something which if he takes, you end up with the result you want.
“If you’re going to tap dance, you should say the quid-pro-quo wasn’t so unseemly because the option offered to Sestak didn’t involve any financial gain.”
I think it’s not unseemly because it’s normal political playing. Its not illegal because there’s no quid pro quo — you offer him the job not in exchange for the guy not running for senate. You offer him the job because if he takes it, that is mutually exclusive with him running for senate.
pizzathehut (73220c) — 5/29/2010 @ 2:19 pmSo as long as the quid pro quo is unspoken, it doesn’t exist and therefore isn’t actionable? A lot of crimes would go unpunished in pth’s land.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/29/2010 @ 2:53 pm“So as long as the quid pro quo is unspoken, it doesn’t exist and therefore isn’t actionable?”
Please read what I wrote. It did not say it was “unspoken.” I said “there’s no quid pro quo.” There was no trade, no offer of a trade, no ‘quo’ for the ‘quid.’
If Sestak accepted the job, he would not have the ability to trade ‘stay out of the race’ for offer of the job.
pizzathehut (017d51) — 5/29/2010 @ 3:04 pmRod Blagojevich is laughing his a** of right now.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/29/2010 @ 3:08 pmoff
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/29/2010 @ 3:09 pm“If Sestak accepted the job, he would not have the ability to trade ’stay out of the race’ for offer of the job.”
PTH – The very fact that it would prohibit him from running accepting your logic is the reason for offering it to him. D’OH!!!!!!
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/29/2010 @ 3:11 pm“PTH – The very fact that it would prohibit him from running accepting your logic is the reason for offering it to him”
Now you’re getting it.
pizzathehut (7de3b7) — 5/29/2010 @ 3:16 pmTransparency is a sign that there’s no quid pro quo involved. Was the White House offer to Sestak transparent, pth?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/29/2010 @ 3:40 pmDo you seriously believe this? If Sestak had taken the job, he would have had to drop out of the race. That was the whole point to offering him the job: to get him out of the race.
To claim there wasn’t a quid pro quo based on that is to overlook the glaringly obvious.
Some chump (967a70) — 5/29/2010 @ 3:57 pm“Transparency is a sign that there’s no quid pro quo involved.”
As I said, you don’t need a sign, because there can be no trade. No quid pro quo. You read when i said this, right? If you disagree with that, please address it, rather than continuing as if you ignore what i wrote.
“Was the White House offer to Sestak transparent, pth?”
I haven’t been following enough to tell. Though the link I provided also posts good reasons why we should not expect presidents to be transparent about the candidates they are considering for job offers. Though I also understand why a president’s political opponents want to know the information revealed by this transparency.
pizzathehut (8bb588) — 5/29/2010 @ 3:57 pm“Do you seriously believe this?”
It’s not a question of belief. It’s pretty simple logic.
pizzathehut (8bb588) — 5/29/2010 @ 3:59 pmYes, it is, and you fail to understand it.
Some chump (967a70) — 5/29/2010 @ 4:14 pmPTH, you can use what ever language you like to try to justify this act. U.S.C. 18, sect. 600 prohibits what ever you wish to call it. Further, if you believe the powers that be went to Sestak to get him to drop out of the Democratic primary for Senator of the State of PA with a non paying job on an advisory board? Well let me just say you should not answer email from Africa offering you large sums of money for little action from you. Just send your personal ID and bank account numbers.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (f669de) — 5/29/2010 @ 4:37 pmPizza… you’d better take a few swats at Sarah Palin, just to help keep the Democrat sheeple mollified.
GeneralMalaise (67df13) — 5/29/2010 @ 4:56 pmThe questions about what jobs were offered when will not be answered until the various players are deposed. And that will happen…after the November elections if the GOP wins enough seats to be the majority in Congress.
Otherwise, the completely corrupt DoJ and the equally corrupt democrat (that is redundant, I know) Congress will just wink at any and all illegal behavior by the White House.
iconoclast (bbd5ee) — 5/29/2010 @ 5:57 pmi:
It sounds like you are saying there was no trade offered, i.e., that the White House did not offer Sestak a position to induce him to bow out of the Senate race. On the other hand, you could be saying that there’s nothing wrong with asking Sestak to bow out because it’s not illegal to do that as long as you don’t pay him to do it. Or maybe you mean something else that I’m not getting. Can you please clarify this?
DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/29/2010 @ 6:10 pmIt’s not a question of belief. It’s pretty simple logic.
Because you say it’s so? That’s not a logical statment in and of itself – but thanks for clearing that up for us.
Dmac (3d61d9) — 5/29/2010 @ 6:27 pmIt is nothing short of astonishing to see the acceptance of Chicago-level corruption by Democrats.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/29/2010 @ 6:51 pmWhat specific act or action taken by Democrats to rectify real corruption within their party can you point to, SPQR?
I’ve given this some thought and I can’t come up with anything. I find their irredeemable corruption fascinating and am truly saddened by it, but never astonished.
GeneralMalaise (67df13) — 5/29/2010 @ 7:19 pmSestak is a retired 3-star vice admiral. He has a very nice retirement income. Possibly Obama thinks he makes enough money already, so maybe he would be open for a unpaid position.
And does anyone here really believe they are going to tell the truth about this, even in front of a congressional committee? It isn’t like they will have to take a lie detector test.
PatAZ (655234) — 5/29/2010 @ 7:54 pm“Further, if you believe the powers that be went to Sestak to get him to drop out of the Democratic primary for Senator of the State of PA with a non paying job on an advisory board? Well ”
No i believe they wanted to give him a job that would be mutually exclusive with running in the primary. Though I think its a dumb idea. I’d rather have sestak take on toomey than specter.
I really don’t see much scandal here. I think its just fine for a president (or someone else) to offer someone a political position in a calculation that includes the fact that that person would vacate a political seat or not pursue a political seat. So for example it’s fine for obama to offer a position in his administration to a republican senator knowing and even intending that this would make it more likely that this senator would then be replaced by a democrat.
This is different than selling a political seat, which is what Blago attempted to do.
pizzathehut (7de3b7) — 5/29/2010 @ 9:38 pmThe law regarding election bribery is very specific. Obama made the offer of a job to encourage Sestak to quit his primary opposition to Specter. It was Obama who owed Specter due to Specter’s voter for Obama’s health care bill.
And, in return, Obama would give Sestak a job only Obama is qualified to offer. THE LAW AGAINST THIS TYPE OF BRIBERY WAS WRITTEN FOR THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR. It is a felony. It is worth an investigation. And, it should definitively lead to Obama’s impeachment and removal.
Those individuals, senators and congressmen who do not agree that this should be investigated are co-conspirators in this felony. It’s a shame that Obama’s Chicago-style politics tries to muck-up what should be free and fair elections; elections decided by voters and NOT by crooked politicians — the law is very clear on this point.
AdrianS (11c5c3) — 5/30/2010 @ 11:51 amThere was no bribery Adrian S. Did you read the law to understand it? If you believe so strongly then every appointment would be “bribery” Say for instance giving John McHugh the Secretary of the Army position to stop him from running for reelection. Or say the case of Senator Hayakawa who was offered a job by Ronald Reagan to withdraw from the 1982 primary because of an already crowded GOP Primary that included Pete Wilson, Barry Goldwater Jr, Bob Dornan and Maureen Reagan. There was no crime committed here. Find other things to point at.
Bob Ross (0b7b4e) — 6/1/2010 @ 7:31 pm