Sestak job offer a bribe?

[DavidJames]

If anyone really thought Obama was going to bring the kind of "change" that ended this sort of deal making, they were hopelessly naive, but it isn't criminal.

I would say that a job could be considered a bribe if the job in question were disproportionate to the person's experience and history. If someone was used to earning $50k/year and were suddenly offered a job in exchange for dropping out of the race and the new job paid $1M/year then I would agree that this would more easily look like a bribe. If the "bribe' job was commensurate with the previous experience then I would say no.

Two very astute and reasonable comments.

 

[WildCat]

Either way, it's pretty normal stuff in DC.

Importantly, it's also not an abuse of office. A Congressman selling his vote is an abuse of office. What is it that Sestak was selling?

Hatch Political Activity Act:

Sec. 2.
It shall be unlawful for any person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department, independent agency, or other agency of the United States (including any corporation controlled by the United States or any agency thereof, and any corporation all of the capital stock of which is owned by the United States or any agency thereof), to use his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting the election or the nomination of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories and insular possessions.

Sec. 3.
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to promise any employment, position, work, compensation, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, 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 any election.

It may be "normal stuff" for some races, but it's illegal in a race for the US Senate.

 

[Crossbow]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/us/politics/25baker.html

"For three months, the White House has refused to say whether it offered a job to Representative Joe Sestak to get him to drop his challenge to Senator Arlen Specter in a Pennsylvania Democratic primary, as Mr. Sestak has asserted.

But the White House wants everyone who suspects that something untoward, or even illegal, might have happened to rest easy: though it still will not reveal what happened, the White House is reassuring skeptics that it has examined its own actions and decided it did nothing wrong. Whatever it was that it did."


Are you reassured?

Well, derailing the opposition by giving them an inside job is tactic that has a rather extensive history in Washington.

I think it was President Johnson (the second Johnson) who did the same sort of thing and when asked why he said something like:

I would rather have him in the tent p***ing out, then outside of the tent p***ing in.

However, actually legally proving that job offer was really a bribe is going to be rather difficult to do. Especially when the supposed crime happened three months ago and nothing has been done about it since then.

So to answer your question, "Yes, I am reassured.".

 

[WildCat]

However, actually legally proving that job offer was really a bribe is going to be rather difficult to do.

Good thing they don't have to, because any job offer is illegal under the Hatch Act I cited above.

 

[Crossbow]

Good thing they don't have to, because any job offer is illegal under the Hatch Act I cited above.

Bingo!

Legally proving bribery is rather difficult since one has to show that both of parties have the understanding of what their respective roles are.

And in this case, since Sestak did not take the job, then there has not been any bribery.

Of course, one could say it was attempted bribery as opposed to bribery, but then one would have to show an illegal intent on the part of the Administration; and showing that the Administration had an illegal intent when it made the job offer, will be quite difficult indeed.

 

[Lurker]

Hatch Political Activity Act:

It may be "normal stuff" for some races, but it's illegal in a race for the US Senate.

Thanks Wildcat. I'll amend my previous postings on this topic and agree that there should be an investigation.

 

[MikeMangum]

Oh, be serious.. Telling a lie like that would be great publicity for him.

* It establishes him as a serious contender (he must have a chance at winning, or the administration wouldn't try to buy him off)
* It demonstrates that he's a man of integrity (he can't be bought)

and most importantly

* It gets his name in the papers in a positive context.

The fact that he would benefit from telling such a lie doesn't mean that he is telling a lie. But it's naive to pretend that he didn't benefit from such a claim; if it really didn't benefit him, why would he have mentioned it at all. (Just because you're offered a shady deal doesn't mean you have to tell the papers about it.)

That's possible. I don't know enough his political situation to judge.

 

[drkitten]

Positive in what way?

Anti-corruption, and anti-establishment (which is an important thing given how poll numbers have been dropping for "the establishment.") Not to mention the two other positive aspects that were listed in the very post you didn't bother to read before responding to.....

 

[drkitten]

Hatch Political Activity Act:

It may be "normal stuff" for some races, but it's illegal in a race for the US Senate.

Obligatory nitpick -- the sort of stuff that defense lawyers love.

No one in the administration would have used "his authority" to interfere with the election. If Sestak had chosen to withdraw, he would have done so under his own authority. Section 2 probably doesn't apply.

And there's a loophole in section 3. Sestak would not have been rewarded for political "activity" but for political inactivity (choosing not to run).

I agree that this is a major violation of the spirit of the Hatch Act, but I'm not sure it violates the letter. Certainly a good defense lawyer would have fun with this.

 

[Meadmaker]

Good thing they don't have to, because any job offer is illegal under the Hatch Act I cited above.

Maybe if presented as a quid pro quo there might be a violation here. If everyone who ever supported a candidate with the reasonable expectation of a political appointment were prosecuted under these terms, most of the ambassadors and a good fraction of the cabinet secretaries would have to be thrown in jail.

Does anyone seriously think that deals like this are uncommon? A more common sort of deal runs like this. Congressman X is considering trying to "upgrade" to Senate. However, as a Congressman, his seat is safe, but he isn't sure of his ability to win the Senate race. He talks to the Powers That Be in his party, and arranges that if he loses, he gets in line for a nice political appointment as a cabinet member, undersecretary, or ambassador.

During every presidential primary season, there is always talk about deals being made for a candidate to drop out and throw his support behind a rival. Those deals often involve appointments. It's normal.

And does anyone seriously think that people who work full time on political campaigns do so out of the goodness of their heart. Those positions don't pay squat. However, if you help Mr. Smith become Senator Smith, Senator Smith is going to need some staff in his Senate office, and those positions pay a lot better. Those kinds of deals, which are normal, everyday, elements of politics, are just as much a violation of the Hatch act as is this alleged deal.

So go ahead and investigate, but I can't imagine the conversation that could have occurred that would result in a conviction.

 

[applecorped]

Anti-corruption, and anti-establishment (which is an important thing given how poll numbers have been dropping for "the establishment.") Not to mention the two other positive aspects that were listed in the very post you didn't bother to read before responding to.....

 

[applecorped]

Obligatory nitpick -- the sort of stuff that defense lawyers love.

No one in the administration would have used "his authority" to interfere with the election. If Sestak had chosen to withdraw, he would have done so under his own authority. Section 2 probably doesn't apply.

And there's a loophole in section 3. Sestak would not have been rewarded for political "activity" but for political inactivity (choosing not to run).

I agree that this is a major violation of the spirit of the Hatch Act, but I'm not sure it violates the letter. Certainly a good defense lawyer would have fun with this.

 

[applecorped]

Ejtm

 

[ravdin]

Heck no! We're talking about the Obama administration and all enlightened people know that rainbows shine from the man's backside.

 

[Puppycow]

Who cares? This is just politics as usual. On "This Week" George Will even said so.

 

[Puppycow]

Asking if someone is interested in a job is not a job offer, BTW.

Even if they did offer him a job there's no way you can ever prove an explicit quid pro quo unless they were so dumb as to put it in writing or something like that.

 

[tyr_13]

Thanks Wildcat. I'll amend my previous postings on this topic and agree that there should be an investigation.

Agreed, although I feel I should note that no matter what is found, anti-Obama people will trot this out and use it as evidence of the 'evil Obama'. It will be hard to sort out valid criticisms from invalid ones, like with the entire Starr thing.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Are you reassured?

Who cares? I don't.

But continue muckraking - 'tis entertaining

 

[applecorped]

Who cares?

Head meet sand.

 

[applecorped]

Impeach??

http://www.examiner.com/x-1087-Denv...sco-impeachment-sequel?cid=edition-rss-Denver

"Here’s the problem. If the White House did make such an offer, it’s a crime. Federal election law prohibits anyone from offering anything of any substantial value, including a job, to someone to influence their vote or their decision to run for office. Sestak is on record, several times, making the claim, so he can’t suddenly say it never happened without torpedoing his own election. This puts the White House in quite a pickle. They could conduct a smear campaign against their own candidate, or they could come clean and face potential impeachment. Impeachment is where this would go because the President is the head of the executive branch, which includes the Justice Department. He can’t be investigated by his own subordinates. It would have to go to Congress. "