Anyone following THIS?
Certainly some will say this sort of thing “Happens all the time” and I’d be willing to bet it does. However it still is a federal crime to do so and I’m wondering if this will go anywhere?
~Matt
Whether it’s a federal crime will depend on the circumstances. It’s my understanding that it would only be problematic if the offer were conditioned upon withdrawing from the contest. I think it would be pretty easy to get around this by simply offering the position without the condition. The condition would still be understood even if not implied. Stating or implying the condition may also not be necessary if acceptance would essentialy take him off the market.
I can see this as a problem for the administration. However, I don’t see it as a problem for Sestak. The article says that Republicans are trying to use this against him, but I have a hard time seeing what he did wrong.
Whether it’s a federal crime will depend on the circumstances. It’s my understanding that it would only be problematic if the offer were conditioned upon withdrawing from the contest. I think it would be pretty easy to get around this by simply offering the position without the condition. The condition would still be understood even if not implied. Stating or implying the condition may also not be necessary if acceptance would essentialy take him off the market.
I’m not sure how one could offer a position to a person that was running for a senate seat without it being “conditioned” on him to withdraw. The only option would be if the offer still stands AFTER they lose the race. Obviously if they take the job while running they have to withdraw as they can’t be senator and something else within the government.
It could however be argued that the offer still stands even if Sestak looses the election.
**I can see this as a problem for the administration. However, I don’t see it as a problem for Sestak. The article says that Republicans are trying to use this against him, but I have a hard time seeing what he did wrong. **
I agree, can hardly blame Sestak for someone offering him a job, illegal or otherwise. OTOH the person, people and associated administration could find themselves under scrutiny.
I’m just wondering if indeed someone will actually take this any further or if it will be dropped.
It would be a bit disconcerting for me to see this just dropped. Even if intentions where completely innocent, there’s as serious lapse of judgment. OTOH worst case scenario is nothing less than using government to influence and manipulate elections directly.
~Matt
I’m sure the justice department will be dilligent in their investigation.
.
As Gibbs stated, White House lawyers have already looked into it and assured him that there was no wrongdoing…
As Gibbs stated, White House lawyers have already looked into it and assured him that there was no wrongdoing…
I know that was in pink…and it’s actually quite a sad statement to think I even have to ask this question…but Gibbs didn’t really say that concerning this issue did he?
~Matt
As Gibbs stated, White House lawyers have already looked into it and assured him that there was no wrongdoing…
I know that was in pink…and it’s actually quite a sad statement to think I even have to ask this question…but Gibbs didn’t really say that concerning this issue did he?
~Matt
Yep. If Gibbs told me the sun would rise in the east I would call hima liar. Possibly the scumiest character in politics and a piss poor person to have out there as your spokesman.
Whether it’s a federal crime will depend on the circumstances. It’s my understanding that it would only be problematic if the offer were conditioned upon withdrawing from the contest. I think it would be pretty easy to get around this by simply offering the position without the condition. The condition would still be understood even if not implied. Stating or implying the condition may also not be necessary if acceptance would essentialy take him off the market.
I can see this as a problem for the administration. However, I don’t see it as a problem for Sestak. The article says that Republicans are trying to use this against him, but I have a hard time seeing what he did wrong.
Oh its not just the Republicans.
As Gibbs stated, White House lawyers have already looked into it and assured him that there was no wrongdoing…
I know that was in pink…and it’s actually quite a sad statement to think I even have to ask this question…but Gibbs didn’t really say that concerning this issue did he?
~Matt
Exactly. I think the pubs are trying to find something where there may be nothing, but the response from the admin that "we're not going to tell you what happened, but we've looked into it, and it was all a-okay", that just begs for the other side to dig deeper. There are much bigger things on the plate, so I hope there is not much time spent on this crap.
As Gibbs stated, White House lawyers have already looked into it and assured him that there was no wrongdoing…
Oh my that really was said, or close enough.
~Matt
I couldn’t find the exact quote when I responded earlier. But, here it is: "I’ve talked to several people in the White House; I’ve talked to people
that have talked to others in the White House. I’m told that whatever
conversations have been had are not problematic. I think Congressman
Sestak has discussed that this is – whatever happened is in the past,
and he’s focused on his primary election.”
couldn’t find the exact quote when I responded earlier. But, here it is: "I’ve talked to several people in the White House; I’ve talked to people that have talked to others in the White House. I’m told that whatever conversations have been had are not problematic. I think Congressman Sestak has discussed that this is – whatever happened is in the past, and he’s focused on his primary election.”
Maybe it is problematic, maybe it isn’t. But it shouldn’t be “In the past” until someone other than the fox in the chicken coup determines that it actually isn’t problematic.
~Matt
As Gibbs stated, White House lawyers have already looked into it and assured him that there was no wrongdoing…
I know that was in pink…and it’s actually quite a sad statement to think I even have to ask this question…but Gibbs didn’t really say that concerning this issue did he?
~Matt
Exactly. I think the pubs are trying to find something where there may be nothing, but the response from the admin that “we’re not going to tell you what happened, but we’ve looked into it, and it was all a-okay”, that just begs for the other side to dig deeper. There are much bigger things on the plate, so I hope there is not much time spent on this crap.
Much bigger things that your own governemnt commitign a federal crime in order to try to “rig” an election?
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) tried to pin down AG Holder on appointing a special prosecutor for the issue. Care to guess how that worked out?
anyone have a link to the relevant law or a more fully explained article?