Patterico's Pontifications

6/2/2010

The White House Job Suggestion Department

Filed under: 2010 Election,Obama — DRJ @ 6:18 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

There are two members in the “The White House Offered Dangled Me a Job if I Wouldn’t Run for Office” Club — Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff:

“Colorado U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff confirmed Wednesday that Jim Messina, President Barack Obama’s deputy chief of staff, suggested three administration jobs that would be available to him last September if he dropped his plans to run against U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, who had the support of the White House.

Romanoff said he informed the White House that he would stay in the race. The revelation comes days after the White House confirmed that Rep. Joe Sestak was approached about an unpaid position in the administration if he dropped his campaign against Sen. Arlen Specter. But in this case, Romanoff was offered paid positions in the administration, a clear difference from the Sestak case.

In a statement to the media, Romanoff attached an email from Messina – dated Sept. 11, 2009 – listing the three jobs, two at USAID and one as director of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, with a page-long set of job descriptions.”

Both Romanoff and the White House insist no job offers were made. Apparently they were just dangled. Is this illegal? I don’t know but it’s questionable politics for a candidate who promised he was someone different. Some might even say it’s Obama’s version of The Chicago Way.

— DRJ

21 Responses to “The White House Job Suggestion Department”

  1. I am so happy that claims by racist republicans that any politician schooled in the Chicago system would be a Chicago Style Criminal have been put to rest by both of these incidents.Offering federal employment for political reasons is not against the law.I know someone is going to pull out some USC blah blah blah some old rule that tries to enforce ethical behavior.Obama ain’t got no time for ethics. Michelle needs a ride on Air Force One to get her hair done.

    highpockets (cf4a2b)

  2. Direct evidence of a crime by a White House official.

    We can now count Eric Holder as the crook that we all knew he was, as he stonewalls special counsel.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  3. This is the hopeyness and changeyness people were hoping for.

    JD (de02cc)

  4. How can I get into the not-running-for-office business?

    Diffus (9ae589)

  5. If I am out of work, what better way to get a cushy government job than to run against their pick.

    If I bet on a horse at the Kentucky Derby, is it OK for me to kneecap the rest of the field?

    Steve G (7d4c78)

  6. “Apparently they were just dangled.”

    DRJ – I thought a man could get arrested some places for dangling in public.

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  7. In Los Angeles, the Grand Jury indicted a guy who was elected judge after his aides offered an opponent money to drop out of his race. The aides were indicted too.

    The law is clear that you can’t offer something to effect an election.

    Otherwise, the Chicago way will rule the land. Are we really going to let this go on without taking action?

    Arizona Bob (e8af2b)

  8. ObamaNation has until Jan 2013 to hand out blanket pardons.

    John Hitchcock (9e8ad9)

  9. Are we really going to let this go on without taking action?

    Unfortunately the real question is: Are the Democrats going to let this go on without taking action?” When things get this bad, Republicans deal with the problem…Just ask Pres. Nixon. It was the Republicans that did him in, not the Democrats. What will the Democrats do?

    They can do what they did for Pre. Clinton, when they shamefully defended what was clearly de facto and de jure sexual harassment as “just sex”. When they clearly defended perjury as “just lying about sex”.

    Make no mistake, whatever way the Democrats decide to play this one will go a long way to determining the future of the Democratic Party.

    gahrie (ed7a50)

  10. Comment by gahrie — 6/2/2010 @ 10:46 pm

    Unfortunately, it can have severe, deleterious affects on the rest of us also.

    AD - RtR/OS! (db90f3)

  11. Just about everyone continues to fail to recognize a key element of the criminal offense defined in the relevant statute — 18 USC 600 — is that the person to whom the job is offered or promised take some “political act” in exchange.

    So far as I have been able to determine, at the time the jobs were offered, neither Sestak nor Romanoff had actually pulled papers to run in their respective Senate races — they had made public announcements of the INTENTIONS to challenge the incumbents, but they were not yet in the race officially.

    Why this matters is because the mere act of asking someone to NOT enter a race – i.e., to do nothing — is probably not within the reach of a statue that requires a “political act”. To read it otherwise would require the prosecutor to argue — and a judge to allow — the proposition that asking someone to do nothing was the same as asking them to do something.

    If Sestak or Romanoff had already entered the race at the time of the entreaty, and were asked to withdraw from the race — or did withdraw from the race — in exchange for an appointed position, then you would have a crime.

    Simply asking them to not follow through on their announced intentions is insufficient.

    shipwreckedcrew (436eab)

  12. Why this matters is because the mere act of asking someone to NOT enter a race – i.e., to do nothing — is probably not within the reach of a statue that requires a “political act”. To read it otherwise would require the prosecutor to argue — and a judge to allow — the proposition that asking someone to do nothing was the same as asking them to do something.

    Isn’t the administration argueing in support of the health care law that preventing someone from doing nothing is the same thing as preventing someone from doing something?

    gahrie (9d1bb3)

  13. And in other news, Black lawmakers want to limit new ethics office

    Some chump (967a70)

  14. Gibbs emailed out a written statement this morning, which apparently claims that they were just following up with him about the USAID position that they claim he had previously applied for, but makes no reference to the other 2 jobs that Messina discussed with him. Every time they lie and obfuscate about this, they create more questions and interest in this.

    JD (d55760)

  15. Every time they lie and obfuscate about this

    It is part and parcel of that they do – it’s hardwired into their DNA.

    Dmac (3d61d9)

  16. @shipwreckedcrew

    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.

    THIS SECTION OF THE LAW DOES NOT SPECIFY THAT THE PERSON INVOLVED NEED BE A CANDIDATE. IT’S PROHIBITION IS DIRECTED TO ANY PERSON WHO WOULD USE HIS POLITICAL OFFICE TO OFFER OR ENTICE ANOTHER PERSON TO EXIT SEEKING OF A POLITICAL POSITION IN EXCHANGE FOR A JOB OR SOMETHING OF VALUE.

    You are no doubt a Democrat, so I can understand your trying to aid Obama in his moment of collapse — Obama and his felonious behavior.

    AdrianS (11c5c3)

  17. AdrianS, your last line is unnecessary and inaccurate.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  18. Every state level politician whose career is stalled now has step by step instructions on how to move up without those pesky elections.Just talking sbout running and filing deadlines and they will be offered a resume’ enhancement.PLay it well and they have nothing to lose.

    clyde (4303cc)

  19. Jonah Goldberg has a great comment about what the Romanoff and Sestak controversies show about the White House.

    Specifically, that they are very politically weak as well as incompetent. They failed at getting low rate opponents out of primaries. They could not successfully entice or threaten people like Andrew Romanoff to get out of a Senate Democratic primary to make room for their favored candidate.

    Very unimpressive.

    I think that among Obama’s accomplishments will be that he’s the first President to be a “lame duck” before mid point of his first term.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  20. As far as I am concerned, and I have said this on blogs previously — months ago; Obama has been a lame duck since he was “elected”.

    AdrianS (11c5c3)

  21. Are they in the same department as the Congressional bribery/vote buying (La purchase/Cornhusker kickback) department?

    Scrapiron (996c34)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0806 secs.