White House Asked Bill Clinton to Urge Sestak to Drop Out of Senate Race

[chevysoldier]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/28/white-house-asked-clinton-urge-sestak-drop-senate-race/

The White House asked former President Bill Clinton to talk to Rep. Joe Sestak about the possibility of obtaining a senior position in the Obama administration if he would drop out of the Democratic primary race against establishment-backed Sen. Arlen Specter, the Obama administration said in a report released Friday morning.

But the report, by White House Counsel Robert Bauer, concluded that "allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in the law."

United States Code 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.

[Disclaimer]

Semantics game here. The possibility of employment != promise.

Kind of like how I tell women I might be able to get them a roll in the movie I'm filming if they sleep with me.

[chevysoldier]

So you are saying because it may not have been a promise, it was okay to do?

[RFM]

Non issue. If you want a true issue, look to the reliance on BP to do the right thing rather than taking control of the situation. BP is a foreign company beholden to the stockholders, and the wellbeing of our coasts and those that derive their income from the waterways aren't their first priority....

Who cares if a seemingly qualified person was approached for a job.

[chevysoldier]

Non issue. If you want a true issue, look to the reliance on BP to do the right thing rather than taking control of the situation. BP is a foreign company beholden to the stockholders, and the wellbeing of our coasts and those that derive their income from the waterways aren't their first priority....

Who cares if a seemingly qualified person was approached for a job.

Because it violates USC 600?

[RFM]

Because it violates USC 600?

So something that merits a fine of not more than $10,000 is worth outrage? That is assuming that something improper was done...

[chevysoldier]

So something that merits a fine of not more than $10,000 is worth outrage? That is assuming that something improper was done...

Ah, so because it isn't "that bad" it's okay to go ahead and do it? Wrong is wrong no matter how you pick it apart. Someone is at fault. I mean the IRS only stole $9,000 of your money. It's isn't that big of a deal...

[RFM]

It also seems that this law seeks to end nepotism. That's how I'm reading it. Seems it hasn't been enforced too vigorously....

[chevysoldier]

Oh, well if everyone did it, it isn't "that" illegal.

IF Sestak was offered a job to drop out of the primary, does it or does it not violate USC 600?

[RFM]

Oh, well if everyone did it, it isn't "that" illegal.

IF Sestak was offered a job to drop out of the primary, does it or does it not violate USC 600?

Inconclusive. We don't know the conversation. We can spend money on a special prosecutor, and waste tax payer money for a non-issue.

How much should we budget to get to the bottom of this issue? Tax dollars, how much should we allocate to this special prosecutor?

[chevysoldier]

Yeah, lying is a non-issue, especially when it violates laws anyways. Hell they are just guidelines. I mean these people run the country. Why shouldn't they be allowed to lie. We have let them do it for so long. even under oath it isn't that big of a deal.

[Aerik]

Yeah, lying is a non-issue, especially when it violates laws anyways. Hell they are just guidelines. I mean these people run the country. Why shouldn't they be allowed to lie. We have let them do it for so long. even under oath it isn't that big of a deal.

I'll wait till all the facts come out before I form an opinion on this one.

However, I certainly hope you were this vigilant about the honesty of our leaders in 2003. Otherwise I'd get to call you a right-wing hypocrite and do a little liberal happy dance

[Disclaimer]

/"Mission Accomplished"

[jporter12]

/U.S. Constitution

[Rod38um]

I'd like to know where all the left wing nut jobs are on this one........ I mean, every loony tree huggin wack job in the country was protesting, marching, bitching on the news about the Exxon thing........... this is 5 times worse and they are all being quiet........ Feds are sitting on their hands doing nothing.......... something is starting to smell worse than the rotting fish on the Luisiana coastline!

[Todd#43]

Personally, I don't think they could have picked a better man for the job.

"That depends on what your definition of 'is' is"

"I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski"

They're all shitbags, more or less, and any one of them would lie if it suited the moment.

They fucked up on this one, for sure, but nothing will come of it.

[C-bus]

Personally, I don't think they could have picked a better man for the job.

"That depends on what your definition of 'is' is"

"I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski"

They're all shitbags, more or less, and any one of them would lie if it suited the moment.

They fucked up on this one, for sure, but nothing will come of it.

In light of his history, an offer from Clinton gives instant plausible deniability. If his fingers, per-chance, may have been crossed...hmmmm....

[Disclaimer]

Did Sestak have a white stain on his suit?

All doubt removed.

[Todd#43]

In light of his history, an offer from Clinton gives instant plausible deniability. If his fingers, per-chance, may have been crossed...hmmmm....

Certainly, he's got the "how to tell a lie" part down.

Did Sestak have a white stain on his suit?

All doubt removed.

If it went down the way they say it went down, I'd say Billy-Boy was the designated cocksucker this time.