White House: 'No Improper Conduct' in Sestak Job Offer

18 US Code Section 600

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.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/29/600
 
18 US Code Section 600

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.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/29/600


Hilarious. Good luck with that one. From which FOXNews personality did you get this exacting analysis?
 
I got it from "find law" which you would know if you followed the link. This one won't even take a child to prove, they flat out said they did it. Unfortunately for them 'any benefit' includes political appointments and other things, remuneration is not necessary...
 
Well, jackass, where'd you get the idea that offering a potential candidate an unpaid position on an advisory board is prohibited by that there law that you posted?
The part where he tried to do it in support or opposition to a candidate in a Primary Race. It's in the law, it isn't even hard to find.
 
The part where he tried to do it in support or opposition to a candidate in a Primary Race. It's in the law, it isn't even hard to find.


Look I'm sure your fellow felchers will lap this shit up because that's what you guys do, but no one with half a brain is buying into it.
 
The part where he tried to do it in support or opposition to a candidate in a Primary Race. It's in the law, it isn't even hard to find.


Which candidate did Obama try to buy Sestak's support for or opposition to? Sestak wasn't asked to support Specter and he wasn't asked to oppose himself.

The trouble is that this law you've got here applies to vote buying and using things of value to buy support for and opposition to candidates, not to influence a candidate's own decision as to whether to he or she should personally run for office.

But, as I said, good luck to you.
 
Which candidate did Obama try to buy Sestak's support for or opposition to? Sestak wasn't asked to support Specter and he wasn't asked to oppose himself.

The trouble is that this law you've got here applies to vote buying and using things of value to buy support for and opposition to candidates, not to influence a candidate's own decision as to whether to he or she should personally run for office.

But, as I said, good luck to you.
This is one of your weaker attempts to cover powerful partisanship. Supporting his opponent by trying to get him to leave a race, even for solely political benefit (a political appointment) is against the law.
 
This is one of your weaker attempts to cover powerful partisanship. Supporting his opponent by trying to get him to leave a race, even for solely political benefit (a political appointment) is against the law.


I'm just laughing at you. I mean, when you have to go to the "partisanship" well so early it is really telling. It's pretty classic accuse-the-opposition-of-that-which-you-are-guilty nonsense. The only people making any issue of this are the biggest hacks in Congress and their felching friends.
 
This is one of your weaker attempts to cover powerful partisanship. Supporting his opponent by trying to get him to leave a race, even for solely political benefit (a political appointment) is against the law.


And of course, you ignore the main point of my post - that this law is simply inapplicable to attempts to influence a candidate or potential candidate regarding running for office. And to try to gin up a controversy out of this is such transparent bullshit that I completely expected it from you.
 
I'm just laughing at you. I mean, when you have to go to the "partisanship" well so early it is really telling. It's pretty classic accuse-the-opposition-of-that-which-you-are-guilty nonsense. The only people making any issue of this are the biggest hacks in Congress and their felching friends.
I didn't "have to go" anywhere, I simply added that as an observation, then directly answered your question. The only people attempting to dismiss it without regard to the actual law are the powerfully partisan who will ignore anything so long as the person who does it has the same letter next to their name.

You sound like the stuff I used to read from articles back in Nixon's time from Social Studies classes, except at that time the powerfully partisan people who ignored things were usually ones with a different letter by their name.
 
I didn't "have to go" anywhere, I simply added that as an observation, then directly answered your question. The only people attempting to dismiss it without regard to the actual law are the powerfully partisan who will ignore anything so long as the person who does it has the same letter next to their name.

You sound like the stuff I used to read from articles back in Nixon's time from Social Studies classes, except at that time the powerfully partisan people who ignored things were usually ones with a different letter by their name.


Really? Nixon. Hilarious. Glenn Beck feed you that line, too? Or are you just cribbing from Darrell Issa this time?
 
Really? Nixon. Hilarious. Glenn Beck feed you that line, too? Or are you just cribbing from Darrell Issa this time?
:rolleyes:

You are getting pitiful. I feel almost sorry for you.

I don't reject a story simply because it comes from a left source and spoke often of the violations of the constitution from Bush (often the same ones from Obama, wiretapping comes to mind.) Too bad you can't even let yourself see what is directly before you when you are wearing your Obama glasses.

Your obvious attempt to attack the source rather than the reality makes me pity you, although I do find it entertaining.
 
look mommy....they did it toooooooo

the fact you had to bring up something that allegedly happened approx. 30 years is laughable and shows you're a hack...why can't you just admit it is pathetic the excuses obama's admin is making....

"unpaid position"

come on, that is freakin hilarious, but you're such a party hack all you can do is point to something that supposedly happened over 20 years ago, instead of criticizing your beloved messiah

Nobody said it was okay 30 years ago. We're saying it's hypocritical to criticize one party for an action while giving the other party a pass.

Now will you admit that reagan should have been investigated and punished for the Hayakawa business, if it's illegal?

Looks like the Teflon president's grip on conservative thinking is still firmly fixed, no matter how big a lying screw-up he was.
 
18 US Code Section 600

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.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/29/600

What say the legal experts:

Former Bush AG Mukasey: Calling Sestak allegations a crime "really is a stretch." On the May 28 edition of Fox News' America Live, former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that it is "highly questionable there was a crime," adding that positions covered under 18 U.S.C. § 600 have to be "made possible, in whole or in part, by an act of Congress. In other words, it has to be a position that was created by an act of Congress or somehow partially created by an act of Congress. If it's not, then it doesn't violate the statute." Mukasey also said that it "really is a stretch" to claim there was a violation of the statute against interfering in Senate races, adding, "I think that it would have to be something much more direct than what we have here in order for it to violate the statute."
 
What say the legal experts:

Former Bush AG Mukasey: Calling Sestak allegations a crime "really is a stretch." On the May 28 edition of Fox News' America Live, former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that it is "highly questionable there was a crime," adding that positions covered under 18 U.S.C. § 600 have to be "made possible, in whole or in part, by an act of Congress. In other words, it has to be a position that was created by an act of Congress or somehow partially created by an act of Congress. If it's not, then it doesn't violate the statute." Mukasey also said that it "really is a stretch" to claim there was a violation of the statute against interfering in Senate races, adding, "I think that it would have to be something much more direct than what we have here in order for it to violate the statute."


Damo says that this is just Mukasey's weak attempt to cover up powerful partisanship since Mukasey is obviously wearing his Obama glasses and Mukasey's comments sound like the stuff Damo used to read from articles back in Nixon's time.
 
If bribing a person - in order to affect a congressional race - with a promise of special consideration for ANY kind of employment, whether the position needs congressional confirmation or not, is NOT against the law, then the laws need to be rewritten. Such acts are reprehensible ion the extreme - the DIRECT INTERFERENCE in the democratic process. The selection of congressional members is the purview of the PEOPLE OF EACH STATE. The federal government has NO BUSINESS sticking their nose in. When the executive branch of the federal government steps in with the purpose and intent of influencing who the people can vote for, then the entire process is corrupted. It's bad enough that the party national committees can and do influence state elections.
 
What say the legal experts:

Former Bush AG Mukasey: Calling Sestak allegations a crime "really is a stretch." On the May 28 edition of Fox News' America Live, former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that it is "highly questionable there was a crime," adding that positions covered under 18 U.S.C. § 600 have to be "made possible, in whole or in part, by an act of Congress. In other words, it has to be a position that was created by an act of Congress or somehow partially created by an act of Congress. If it's not, then it doesn't violate the statute." Mukasey also said that it "really is a stretch" to claim there was a violation of the statute against interfering in Senate races, adding, "I think that it would have to be something much more direct than what we have here in order for it to violate the statute."
No, it says in any way in whole or in part... It isn't a stretch, it is what it is. However, I did mention far more than Sestak, and the positions that were suggested to Romanov (at least from what was reported) were most definitely created wholly by an Act of Congress. The ignored allegations are the ones that draw my interest most, the ones they attempt to misdirect from.
 
No, it says in any way in whole or in part... It isn't a stretch, it is what it is. However, I did mention far more than Sestak, and the positions that were suggested to Romanov (at least from what was reported) were most definitely created wholly by an Act of Congress.

but, but...it would have been unpaid!!!@@!#@@
 
Back
Top