Obama Administration Bribery?

[novice skeptic]

So, given the complete lack of evidence one way or the other, fall back on your own bias then? Yay! The system works.

No evidences = no conclusions.

Do you have evidence, BAC?

Since when are the words of a witness to an an event (in this case Sestak) not considered evidence?

That doesn't mean Sestak isn't lying or that his statements prove Obama did anything wrong. However, your claim that there is "no evidence" is incorrect.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Since when are the words of a witness to an an event (in this case Sestak) not considered evidence?

When the other side has equal evidence to the contrary (a statement by a witness denying the first statement).

It's not, I suppose, that there is no evidence, but that the evidence has been answered and the burden of proof remains on (or shifts back to) the person alleging a crime. (Remember, we presume someone is innocent unless or until a case is made for guilt.)

 

[novice skeptic]

When the other side has equal evidence to the contrary (a statement by a witness denying the first statement).

It's not, I suppose, that there is no evidence, but that the evidence has been answered and the burden of proof remains on (or shifts back to) the person alleging a crime. (Remember, we presume someone is innocent unless or until a case is made for guilt.)

Maybe I'm being too literal, but I never claimed evidence=guilt. Upchurch said there was no evidence. Your are correct there is not proof and you are correct that in a COURT OF LAW there is a presumption of innocence. But that isn't the point I was making. There IS evidence. Having heard the evidence you can weigh it, accept it, dismiss it, rebut it or ignore it.

I honestly don't think there's much of a story here. If MORE evidence were to come out, maybe that would change, but I don't forsee that.

 

[BeAChooser]

You quoted the statute. However, you provided no evidence whatsoever that anybody violated it.

Other than the testimony of a democrat Congressman.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35768

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa) is insisting that the Obama Administration offered him a “high-ranking job” in return for his withdrawal from the May Democratic primary against five-term Sen. (and Republican convert) Arlen Specter. As of yesterday (February 23rd), the top spokesmen for both the President and the Secretary of Defense were not commenting one way or another.

… snip …

Sestak, however, has no doubt about what was said and offered to him. Following Gibbs’ exchange with reporters, I spoke to the congressman’s press secretary Jonathon Dworkin and he told me without hesitation: “Congressman Sestak stands by his statement. ... snip ..."

 

[BeAChooser]

Ah, but they have found Obama's Kenyan birth certificate. The only problem is that it came out of the same Crackerjack box as Bush's National Guard document.

Please stick the topic and not derail this thread.

 

[BeAChooser]

So, given the complete lack of evidence one way or the other, fall back on your own bias then?

My own bias? LOL! I'm simply quoting a democrat Congressman.

Are you accusing him of bias, Upchurch?

Here's his website:

http://joesestak.com/splash.html

Here's his wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Sestak

He looks to be a fine upstanding democrat. And do you see that he's a retired US Navy Rear Admiral? In fact, he's the highest ranking member of the armed services currently serving in Congress. And you are calling him a liar? I'm sorry, but I'd say that gives him some credibility when stacked up against the likes of someone who knowingly associated with numerous self-admitted communists his whole life. Or anyone in his administration, which seems to be filled with much dishonesty and political intrigue.

In fact, this isn't the first time this adminstration has been accused of offering high ranking government jobs in return for political favors. You'll recall that in August of 2009, the Denver Post reported (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13429758 ) that Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina "offered specific suggestions" for a job in the Obama Administration to Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff, a former state House Speaker, if Romanoff would agree to abandon a nomination challenge to U.S. Senator Michael Bennet. The Post cited "several sources" for the allegation.

All I'm calling for is an investigation. You're the one showing your bias, Upchurch.

 

[Loss Leader]

You realize, this is a federal crime.

No, it isn't.

"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."

Assuming everything about the story is true, when exactly did the Obama administration ask the Congressman to support Specter? When did they ask him to use his influence to obtain an appointive office? All he was asked to do (if true) is not run for the Senate. There's a huge difference in not challenging Specter for his seat and supporting him. I'm not challenging Specter, either.

If anything, the case could be made against the Congressman. He's the one who was in line for an appointive office. So, he's the one who can't offer anything in exchange for that office.

At the very least, this should be investigated, and if found true, his Deputy Chief of Staff should be removed from office. Wouldn't everyone here agree?

No. This is common among both parties and doesn't amount to bribery in the least.

 

[BeAChooser]

Assuming everything about the story is true, when exactly did the Obama administration ask the Congressman to support Specter? When did they ask him to use his influence to obtain an appointive office? All he was asked to do (if true) is not run for the Senate.

LOL! I'm surprised you didn't redefine "is" while you were at it.

So you don't think that by withdrawing from the race, Jim Sestak would have been showing support for Specter?

If anything, the case could be made against the Congressman. He's the one who was in line for an appointive office. So, he's the one who can't offer anything in exchange for that office.

LOL! That's right folks. It was Sestak who committed the crime. Welcome to 1984, democrat style.

This is common among both parties and doesn't amount to bribery in the least.

Please, give us other examples where something was offered to a politician by the party in power to get them to withdraw from a political race?

I did give you one more example. Again, by the Obama administration. But can you prove to us this is common like you claim?

By the way ...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bribe

1. Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct.

 

[Upchurch]

Since when are the words of a witness to an an event (in this case Sestak) not considered evidence?

That doesn't mean Sestak isn't lying or that his statements prove Obama did anything wrong. However, your claim that there is "no evidence" is incorrect.

Sorry, you are correct. It is technically "anecdotal evidence", which we should all know is next to nothing.

BAC: yes, you are falling back on your own bias by assuming Obama's guilt on next to nothing and your mad-on for any ideology not your own.

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC: yes, you are falling back on your own bias by assuming Obama's guilt on next to nothing and your mad-on for any ideology not your own.

Are you another who can not read? Did you not notice my use of the word "if"? I'm more than willing to leave open the possibility that Obama was not involve in this. All I ask for is an honest investigation of the Congressman's allegation. Not the stonewall it's now getting from the Holder DOJ.

 

[Upchurch]

Call me skeptical but if that is truly how you feel, I apologize.

An honest investigation based on what? He said, they said?

 

[Loss Leader]

So you don't think that by withdrawing from the race, Jim Sestak would have been showing support for Specter?

No, I do not.

 

[Mumbles]

"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." -- 18 USC Sec. 211 -- Bribery, Graft and Conflicts of Interest: Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office

That's an unusual number of ellipses for a federal law. Here, let's take a look at the full law:

"Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or 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. Whoever solicits or receives any thing of value in consideration of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States either by referring his name to an executive department or agency of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section shall not apply to such services rendered by an employment agency pursuant to the written request of an executive department or agency of the United States."

I don't see how Sestak not running for senate could be seen as money or a thing of value, that could be given as a political contribution or for personal emolument. So, even if Sestak was being honest, I don't see anything that falls afoul of this law.

 

[Lurker]

To be honest, I thought BaC had stumbled on something that actually had merit. it sure sounded like bribery and was about to write a post siding with him with a caveat that this sort of bribery goes on all the time in DC.

Then I read Mumbles post who actually wondered about those ellipses. Now I see why BaC struck out portions of the quote. It is clear this no longer rises to bribery. Deal making is not bribery. If that were true then all of DC would be guilty as this sort fo deal making is common. Glad to know neither Obama nor all the other politicians are guilty of bribery. Mumbles nailed it and I thank him for his post. I should have known better to trust a BaC post laden with ellipses in his quotation of a law.

 

[Dancing David]

That's an unusual number of ellipses for a federal law. Here, let's take a look at the full law:

 

[KingMerv00]

deleted

 

[Lurker]

I checked BaC's source in this first post and it does not quote the law. So I am uncertain where BaC quoted the bribery law. I am wondering if he reprinted someone else dishonestly quoting the law or if BaC himself dishonestly quoted the law.

Without evidence to the contrary since BaC did not provide a cite with that exact editing, I can only presume BaC himself chose to use the ellipses and was purposely dishonet. Either that or he completely misunderstood the law, which is possible.

 

[BeAChooser]

Gee Lurker and Mumbles ... if I was trying to be dishonest, why did I quote the full text of the law in post #12? You didn't even need to look it up, did you?

And I'm surprised that you think my editing out the words ", either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument," and "money or" from the first sentence of the law that prohibits the "use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States" dishonestly changes the meaning? Afterall, it was not alleged that money was offered but a thing (a job) in place of the seat in Congress that he was seeking. And Sestak was most certainly being asked to "aid" someone else (see the second sentence in the law) to get "employment" by not running for that job. And that "top federal job" he was offered would certainly constitute "personal emolument" for Sestak. And Sestak giving up his run for a seat in Congress would seemingly constitute a "political contribution" of sorts to the Obama's administration.

So I don't think it's as clear cut as you think that this law doesn't apply. It certainly fits the common definition for BRIBERY. But then, we all thought we knew what the word "is" meant too. Maybe democrats just want to turn us into a full-blown Chicago-style Banana Republic where bribery "is" the norm.

 

[Upchurch]

Now, if only we had some concrete evidence that something like that actually happened...

 

[Mumbles]

I checked BaC's source in this first post and it does not quote the law. So I am uncertain where BaC quoted the bribery law. I am wondering if he reprinted someone else dishonestly quoting the law or if BaC himself dishonestly quoted the law.

Without evidence to the contrary since BaC did not provide a cite with that exact editing, I can only presume BaC himself chose to use the ellipses and was purposely dishonet. Either that or he completely misunderstood the law, which is possible.

You can do a quick google search, and find the same wording at all sorts of right-wing sites and news comment sections.

And I'm surprised that you think my editing out the words ", either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument," and "money or" from the first sentence of the law that prohibits the "use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States" dishonestly changes the meaning?

I think that posting the full law helps people to understand what this law is actually about - namely, anyone that receives a payment to help someone get an appointment, or a job in an executive branch or agency, that isn't contracted to do so by the government. If we took *your* interpretation, it would be illegal for candidates to pay their campaign staff.