PDA

View Full Version : Is Sestak Obama's Watergate? by Pat Buchanan




bobbyw24
05-28-2010, 04:42 AM
Which brings us to Rep. Joe Sestak's claim that he was offered an administration job if he would abandon his race against Sen. Arlen Specter for the Democratic nomination in Pennsylvania. Reportedly, the job offered to the retired admiral was secretary of the navy.

On May 18, Sestak won that primary, and his charge that he was proffered a White House bribe, or deal, went viral.

So, today, Joe has a problem. And so does the White House.

For if Sestak was offered a high post in the administration to abandon his challenge to a U.S. senator endorsed by Obama, this would seem on its face a criminal violation of federal law.

All seven Senate Republicans on the judiciary committee have written Attorney General Eric Holder calling for an independent counsel to investigate the alleged bribe. They cite 18 U.S. Code Section 600, which forbids the offer of any government job "as consideration, favor or reward for any political activity" or "in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office."

If Sestak was offered a high government post to get out of the Pennsylvania race, it would appear an open-and-shut case that a felony was committed by someone high in the White House.

When CNN's John King suggested that such an offer "marches up into the gray area, perhaps the red area of a felony, it is a felony to induce somebody by offering them a job," White House adviser David Axelrod did not disagree with King: "If such things happened, they would constitute a serious breach of the law."

However, Axelrod assured King, "when the allegations were looked into, there is no evidence of such a thing."

And who looked into the allegation that a bribe was offered to Sestak and found "no evidence" of White House wrongdoing?

The White House counsel's office.

Sorry, but this will not do. For when White House Counsel John Dean investigated the staff role in Watergate for President Nixon, he, too, found them all innocent.

Nor is this a trivial matter. For if the offer was made by a White House staffer and involved the post of secretary of the navy, serious questions arise for all involved.

Why did not Sestak, a congressman and admiral, report it? Has he not taken an oath to uphold the law?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan137.html

bobbyw24
05-28-2010, 08:39 AM
Senior White House advisers asked former President Bill Clinton to talk to Joe Sestak about whether he was serious about running for Senate, and to feel out whether he’d be open to other alternatives, according to sources familiar with the situation.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/28/exclusive-white-house-asked-clinton-to-talk-to-sestak-about-senate-run/#ixzz0pEdtHsdw

sevin
05-28-2010, 08:49 AM
So, today, Joe has a problem. And so does the White House.

For if Sestak was offered a high post in the administration to abandon his challenge to a U.S. senator endorsed by Obama, this would seem on its face a criminal violation of federal law.


Nope.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/white-house-used-bill-clinton-to-ask-sestak-to-drop-out-of-race/


The office of Robert F. Bauer, the White House counsel, has concluded that Mr. Emanuel’s proposal did not violate laws prohibiting government employees from promising employment as a reward for political activity because the position being offered was unpaid. The office also found other examples of presidents offering positions to political allies to achieve political aims.

I don't see this being his watergate. Like many other crimes the government commits, this one will probably be ignored.

hillertexas
05-28-2010, 08:50 AM
Sec. 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.

AMENDMENTS
1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for
"fined not more than $10,000".
1976 - Pub. L. 94-453 substituted $10,000 for $1,000 maximum
allowable fine.
1972 - Pub. L. 92-225 struck out "work," after "position,",
inserted "contract, appointment," after "compensation," and "or any
special consideration in obtaining any such benefit," after "Act of
Congress,", and substituted "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" for "in any election".

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1972 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 92-225 effective Dec. 31, 1971, or sixty
days after date of enactment [Feb. 7, 1972], whichever is later,
see section 408 of Pub. L. 92-225, set out as an Effective Date
note under section 431 of Title 2, The Congress.
Last modified: April 13, 2006

Golding
05-28-2010, 01:25 PM
Sec. 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.

AMENDMENTS
1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for
"fined not more than $10,000".
1976 - Pub. L. 94-453 substituted $10,000 for $1,000 maximum
allowable fine.
1972 - Pub. L. 92-225 struck out "work," after "position,",
inserted "contract, appointment," after "compensation," and "or any
special consideration in obtaining any such benefit," after "Act of
Congress,", and substituted "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" for "in any election".

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1972 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 92-225 effective Dec. 31, 1971, or sixty
days after date of enactment [Feb. 7, 1972], whichever is later,
see section 408 of Pub. L. 92-225, set out as an Effective Date
note under section 431 of Title 2, The Congress.
Last modified: April 13, 2006Gotta love how swift the damage control is here. Another false assignment of right-left paradigm. "The right is up in arms, while the left is saying so what", I read on one site. MSNBC will surely rally to Obama's rescue on this one. There's no way that this will be Obama's Watergate, nor will there ever again be a Watergate. Watergate was reserved for a time when the press had a shred of integrity.

"This sort of thing happens in Washington all the time". Can't have it both ways when you sell yourself to the voters as someone above the "same old Washington politics" the way Obama did. What ever happened to the "change" mantra?

The kicker is "the position offered was an unpaid position". So what? The law specifies position and compensation as an "either/or" issue. No way can anyone not consider this a form of bribery unless they are seriously brand-loyal.

MelissaWV
05-28-2010, 01:26 PM
What? Oh I'm sorry. I'm a member of the public, and I had no idea this was going on. I was too busy watching the President taking the blame for the oil spill in the Gulf, and figuring out who won the latest reality show, and important stuff like that. Who's "Sestak" and what's a "Watergate"?

:(

NewFederalist
05-28-2010, 02:33 PM
AND... what's a Spectre?