"Sestak couldn't have been nominated for secretary of the Navy" (The Timeline Doesn't Work)

[Clio the Leo]

(At least if we assume that he's claiming he was offered Sec. of the Navy.)

Sestak couldn't have been nominated for secretary of the Navy

A helpful reader points out a hole in the theory that someone in the Obama administration floated a job offer to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) in order to entice him out of the U.S. Senate primary with Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Penn.). The most popular version of the story -- and the only fact we have is that Sestak claims an offer of some kind was made at some point -- has Sestak being offered the role of secretary of the Navy. But as The Post pointed out in an op-ed on the matter -- itself an example of what a ripe fruit Sestak has given Republicans here -- that would have been impossible.

On March 27, 2009, the administration nominated Ray Mabus as secretary of the Navy. It wasn't until April 28 that Specter became a Democrat, and by Sestak's own recollection, he was literally being courted to run the day that news broke. On May 18, the Senate confirmed Mabus. And on May 29, Sestak entered the Senate race.

It's pretty clear that if Sestak was offered a job, it wasn't secretary of the Navy. And yet David Gregory of "Meet the Press" asked him that question, point-blank, this weekend. Another example of how Sestak's weird decision to float the story then answer no new questions about it has led to a worse situation than simply explaining what he meant. (For obvious reasons, the story would have been worse for all sides if the callow White House was politicizing the military.)

By David Weigel | May 25, 2010; 8:16 AM ET

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/sestak_couldnt_have_been_nomin.html

[joeybee12]

1. This is BS...this "voice" is a conservative nut job...and as a reader points out...

...Specter started talking to Dems and the president LONG before he made the annoucement he was switching. This theory si easily proven wrong.

BTW, who the phuck cares if Obama did or didn't offer him the job? That's what happens in politics...you want to have a clear, clean primary.

Promoting this BS is merely an attempt to make Sestak look bad...so don't help the Repukes.

[phleshdef]

2. Sestak didn't decide to run until AFTER Specter switched. So no, NOT easily proven wrong.

[joeybee12]

3. Did you read what i wrote? Specter was talking to Dems AND Obama

long before he made the announcment and actually switched...that blows this theory to smithereens...honestly, what is with the push here to promote RW talking points?

[phleshdef]

4. What you wrote is irrelevant. If Sestak hadn't announced he was running...

...then he couldn't be offered a "bribe job" to keep him from running. It doesn't matter when Specter did ANYTHING.

The right wing talking point is what YOU are pushing and that is that Sestak isn't lying and that the Whitehouse actually tried to bribe him away from running.

[joeybee12]

6. Bull-pucky...the timeline of when Specter ANNOUNCED is irrelevant...

he had been talking to obama and the dems LONG before he actually announced the switch, the offer to Sestak...who was obviously going to run...could have easily been made earlier than the date of Specter's announcement because they were trying to clear ther path for Specter.

And, NO, I am not calling it a bribe...I never did anywhere I posted....this is politics...I don't give a FUCK whether they tried to get him out of the primary or not...I would have been surprised had they not tried to do so...reason this whole thing through and see that the DATE of Specter's annoucenment and the annoucement of Mabus MEAN NOTHING. Reason it through, I dares ya!

[NoNothing]

7. Regardless of what you want to call it

It pretty clearly *is* a bribe by the definitions of U.S. law. It would be bad if it did come from the white house - you could expect another special counsel investigation, at the very minimum.

[jberryhill]

9. Please cite the statute in question

I am soooo tired of "it broke the law" being claimed without any reference to an applicable law.

[NoNothing]

11. Sure, happy to oblige

18 U.S.C. 210
Whoever pays or offers or promises any money or thing of value,
to any person, firm, or corporation in consideration of the use or
promise to use any influence to procure any appointive office or
place under the United States for any person, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

18 U.S.C. 211
Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution,
or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in
consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in
obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the
United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than one year, or both.
Whoever solicits or receives any thing of value in consideration
of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States
either by referring his name to an executive department or agency
of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because
such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this
title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section
shall not apply to such services rendered by an employment agency
pursuant to the written request of an executive department or
agency of the United States.

[jberryhill]

13. Ah, very good, a first step...Now, let's apply some facts, shall we

Section 210 addresses a situation where someone solicits or pays another person for the purpose of procuring federal employment.

1.So, with regard to 210, can you explain what Sestak is purported to have paid someone for a federal job? Sestak said he was offered a job, and refused it.

2.So, kindly explain how Sestak's refusal of a job, in your mind, translates into him paying a thing of value for the purpose of procuring a federal job?

Section 211 addresses the situation in which a candidate makes a promise of future appointment to a person for the purpose of securing support from that person.

3.I'm guessing here you believe that Sestak offered Obama a Senate staff position in the event he wins? I really don't think Obama would be interested in another job.

The second situation in Section 211 is influence buying - i.e. where someone collects a fee for referring a job seeker to the department in question.

4. Who, in your mind was looking to collect such a fee?

So, to sum up, can you explain what facts fit either of these scenarios? For your convenience, I have numbered the questions above, so that you may conveniently organize your responses.

[NoNothing]

14. Both sections are related

They are just two sides of the same coin. But since Sestak claims he did not solicit the offer, if we assume this is true than Section 211 is the applicable one. So, to answer your question 4: it would depend on the facts. Note that, contra your summarization, the statute does not use the word "fee," it says "money or thing of value." I think you might be misreading Section 211 - the "promise of support" is on behalf of the official to use their influence to obtain another person a job. This part is pretty clear: anyone who offers to use their influence - or even express support of a job candidate - in exchange for anything of value to obtain an government position is in violation. So the question is really whether the act of dropping out of the race was a thing of value to someone at the white house. I would assume it was (again assuming that this quid-pro-quo is not made up entirely) else why make the offer in the first place?

You could also bring into the mix 18 USC 595, making it a crime for any government employee to use official authority to interfere with or even "affect" a senate election, and 18 USC 600, which makes it a crime to promise government employment in exchange for "any political activity."

[jberryhill]

15. Ah, ah, ah...

If you are going to cite a statute, apply the specific facts. I've addressed Section 600 in another thread, but for completeness, apply the facts.

You have a creative definition of "thing of value". An act is not a thing. But, we are getting ahead of ourselves. It is inherent in every job offer that you are being invited to accept the offer of "this job", which necessarily means that you would forego whatever other job you were seeking. In your view, the appointment of Tom Ridge as DHS Secretary (in exchange for him resigning as governor of Pennsylvania) or the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State (in exchange for her resigning her Senate seat) were more clearly illegal.

These appointments were, in your view, more clearly illegal, because Sestak wasn't being asked to give up an elected position - if we take your "act as a thing of value" route here.

The administration may offer any position to any person at any time it pleases. What it cannot do is to extract a payment or tangible thing of value from the person to whom it offers the job, as an inducement for making the offer. The notion that forbearance from some other job is the "thing of value" is silly, because it renders all appointments illegal - if the appointee accepts, it is always true that they will forego some other employment.

I cannot follow your reasoning in regard to Section 211. Who is it that was offered something in exchange for a promise of support or use of influence in obtaining an appointed position, in your application of the facts here? The clause is "promise of support or use of influence... in obtaining an appointive office." The notion that someone would some generalized promise to "support the president" in exchange for an appointment would render most appointments illegal, since it is the rare appointment made to a person who is inimically opposed to the administration's policies. The "promise of support" is the promise made by the person accepting the thing of value - i.e. support in securing the appointment itself.

However, an offer of an appointed position is neither a "promise of support" in obtaining one, nor is it the use of influence in obtaining one. The president may directly offer an appointment to anyone at any time, and that is not the "use of influence" - it is the exercise of his or her lawful power to make appointments. Are you saying it is illegal for the president to support his own appointees? Do you think the administration is required to sit on its hands during, say, the Kagan confirmation?

Your remarks on sections 595 and 600 are interesting. Tell me, is it your position that Barack Obama broke any law when he invited Joe Biden to be his VP candidate? You do understand that Joe Biden was running for re-election to his Senate seat at the time. Not only was he running as a Senate candidate, he remained on the ballot and actually won. After his election to the Senate in 2008, Mr. Biden resigned and our Governor appointed Ted Kauffman to occupy his seat.

So, unless you feel like a detailed response, I would be most interested in your simple response to the question of whether you believe that Barack Obama interfered in a Senate race by naming Senate candidate Joe Biden as his VP choice during said same Senate race?

(on edit: the reason why you know an act is not a thing here, is because the other sections DO refer to such acts as "promise of support" or "use of influence" in obtaining an appointment IN EXCHANGE for a "thing of value". Tangentially, I'd be interested in what you calculate the "value" here to be.)

[harkadog]

16. How come you won't answer the simple question?

If there are no problems here why has the WH lawyered up? Why do they refuse to answer any questions about this? They will have to because it will not go away. As the Nixon and Clinton administrations will tell you it never goes away and it comes out in the end.

[jberryhill]

17. Ah... and where's that durn original birf certificate

The White House, every White House, is in a perpetual state of being "lawyered up" as you call it.

What "came out in the end" of the Clinton administration was no finding of a violation of any law by the president.

Don't worry, harkadog, I know how eager you are, but if you wait long enough, maybe Barack Obama will get a blowjob.

How about you respond to the last post in the thread where you and I were discussing the topic, instead of coming down with sudden amnesia.

If you are trying to suggest to me, a lawyer, that there is something unusual about people consulting lawyers, I'm afraid to say that's a non-starter. I have clients who don't go to the bathroom without calling me first.

[harkadog]

37. I hope your judges are impressed with your deflection and straw men

[jberryhill]

41. Why, thank you

I appreciate your concern for my career. I do nicely, thank you.

I see you can't avoid personal attacks yet, and that is unfortunate.

How do you do in court by (a) not having facts and (b) saying the other side is stonewalling, as a means for demonstrating the existence of a claim?

You do understand that, for example, when you file a civil complaint, you don't even have discovery yet, but you must allege sufficient facts which, if shown, would make out a claim. That's before the other side even says anything. You see, in order to "state a claim", you must have at least some set of factual allegations which, if proven, would constitute a violation.

Now, as you know, I had previously asked you for a proposed, or hypothetical, set of facts and an identification of a statute which would be violated.

Your response is "they are stonewalling" and you said I was "twisting version of the facts". But that's not really responsive to my request for you to even propose a hypothetical set of facts here, which is why I responded by asking you what is your version of the facts?

[harkadog]

49. In court we have depositions to take care of stonewalling.

The media does not have that advantage.

[jberryhill]

50. Not when you file a complaint you do not

First of all, a deposition is not taken in court. Questioning in court is an examination. Questioning out of court under oath is a deposition.

Secondly, you are still not getting the point, are you?

You see, before you get to a trial, you must file a complaint. The complaint must allege facts which, if proven, would constitute an offense.

The object of the trial is to prove those allegations.

You have an odd approach to this concept. You think you say, "He broke the law" and then conduct a proceeding to even get to the point of factual allegations.

I am sorry you do not seem to grasp how this works.

What is it that you allege to have happened, and what law does it violate?

[phleshdef]

22. Are you really that clueless about how the typical Whitehouse uses lawyers?

[jberryhill]

31. I always love the "evil lawyer" thing...

People have made accusations of a crime, and the parties accused have had the GALL to consult with "lawyers". Barack Obama and Joe Biden are, of course, both lawyers, so how they "lawyer up" escapes me.

[harkadog]

40. Most lawyers consult other lawyers if they are accused of something.

Maybe they don't teach that at Ma and Pa Kettle Law School.

[jberryhill]

43. Isn't anonymity a wonderful thing?

I did not go to an Ivy League school, it's true.

I had to settle for nobodies like Joe Biden as law professors. Heaven forfend.

Do you have an argument about some political or legal topic to offer? Or are you finished with that?

[harkadog]

48. Anonymity certainly helps you.

You can post b.s. to your heart's content. You have not answered any questions I posed to you so the argument is obviously over.

[jberryhill]

51. Umm... I'm not anonymous

I post using my actual name, so I don't understand your point. I am not anonymous, and that is by choice. I am not a coward hiding behind a screen name. That is a difference between you and I.

Your questions are "why is the WH stonewalling?" You are asking for a reason for their choice not to dwell on the topic of your choice. I am sorry that is frustrating for you, and must be as frustrating it is for the birthers who, like you, do not have a set of facts on which to base an allegation that a law was violated.

But, I cannot answer for the White House, so I really cannot tell you the internal mental processes of why Mr. Gibbs chooses to answer one question or not another.

You cannot either, unless you are some sort of psychic.

So, perhaps a more pleasant conversation is to discuss things which we do know. We know that certain claims have been made about Sestak, and we can both read the relevant statutes and case law, so perhaps we might discuss your view that a violation of law has taken place.

Because, frankly, if the conversation is going to revolve around why someone did X or did not do X, and that someone is neither you nor I, then I fear that neither of us is going to arrive at a satisfactory answer.

[harkadog]

57. So you are saying all the thousands of people on DU are cowards?

Afterall 99% or more of people posting on DU don't use their real names. So according to you they are cowards. As it turns out in this case David Axelrod agrees with me and not you. He said Tuesday that offering a job in exchange of Mr.Sestak's withdrawal would "constitute as serious breach of the law". Now Mr. Axelrod is not a lawyer and someone in his position would not make that statement from their own opinion. He was told that by a WH lawyer. So email the WH with your theories and explain to them how the statutes do not apply.

[harkadog]

38. I am sure you will educate me.

I will be waiting breathlessly for your omnipotent knowledge.

[NoNothing]

20. An act is not a thing?

Yes it is. It is an act, or a service. They can certainly have value. And I'm not arguing that his not winning the appointed office was the "thing of value," but that the dropping out of the race - which, by your own example of Biden, is NOT axiomatic - could be.

Per Section 211: the President does indeed have the lawful power to appoint any one at any time - but not for any reason. By way of analogy: suppose you have a legislator X and an interested party Y who wants passage of legislation Z. It is absolutely within X's lawful power to introduce Z. It is absolutely within Y's lawful power to contribute to X's re-election fund. However, it is NOT within Z's lawful power to introduce Z *because of* Y's contribution. Likewise, Obama can appoint Sestak if wants. And Sestak can drop out of any races he wants. But it is not within Obama's lawful power to appoint Sestak *because of* his dropping out of the race. Intent matters!

Now obviously, this is all usually superficially clean. So long as X and Y never explicitly talk about the relationship between the contributions and the legislation, a quid pro quo is probably unprovable. So even if Obama selected Biden specifically to affect his Senate campaign - which doesn't from the facts seem likely - that would not be a violation unless there was or was intended to be an actual understanding between them specifically to achieve that result.

Per your edit: that doesn't make sense. Are you saying a thing of value cannot be exchanged for another thing of value? What is the value of Sestak dropping out? Hard to say - value to a person is entirely subjective. Objectively, you could start by summing up all the primary campaign costs that didn't need to be expended.

[jberryhill]

24. No, it is not

If we were talking about a carpet installation service valued at $300 you might have something here.

But, as I said, EVERY acceptance of an appointment inherently involves forbearance of some alternative. What was the "thing of value" when Bush, needing support in Pennsylvania, chose their popular governor to head the new DHS?

What was the "value" of incidentally obtaining support of Hillary voters, when she was appointed Secretary of State? You don't think there was value there? I do. It also turns out that Hillary was well qualified for the job.

You can tease out some incidental political benefit of a LOT of appointments. In the Bush White House, all appointments were almost entirely political.

"But it is not within Obama's lawful power to appoint Sestak *because of* his dropping out of the race."

First off, he had not "entered" a race at the relevant time, but your mere assertion of "political value" embodied in the incidental forbearance of some other future employment, as a "thing of value" is already a stretch. Simply repeating it, when there is no "thing" and there is no definable "value" in the context of a statute clearly intended to address bribery, is a double stretch.

"So even if Obama selected Biden specifically to affect his Senate campaign - which doesn't from the facts seem likely - that would not be a violation unless there was or was intended to be an actual understanding between them specifically to achieve that result."

Aha, but you can shadow box this thing even further. People thought the pick might have been Evan Bayh. What if Obama selected Biden instead of Bayh, because Obama wanted Bayh to remain a Senator from Indiana? This is why you can't lump political considerations into a "thing of value", because the game would become an exercise in defining a huge set of hypotheticals, and then determining whether an appointment was made as a consequence of which course obtained maximum political benefit. Well, duh, of course political benefit is a factor in offering any political appointment.

Which brings us back to doe!

Some mopping up - "value to a person is entirely subjective" - and that is why the law refers to such things as a "thing of value" - i.e. something reducible to dollars and cents. It may be a subjective value, such as "what is the value of that Monet painting?" But even a Monet painting will have a value if it is put on the auction block at Christies. When we refer to things like acts, or rights, we usually use such terms as "incalculable value" or "irreparable" value, which is the language of the field of law called "equity", that deals with acts, forbearance of action, rights and relationships. (With the caveat that something like "detailing your car" is a service with a definite monetary value)

But, really, if you consider "political benefit" to be a "thing of value" in this context, then appointments would almost always open up this debate, since vast numbers of appointments are inseparable from some element of political benefit. Appointments are certainly not made with the idea that they must be of some ideal "neutral benefit" or even detriment.

[NoNothing]

28. I believe you are arguing around my point

Nobody, including myself, has argued or would argue that generating a political benefit by way of appointment power is prohibited. Certainly, the statute doesn't say anything like that. Rather, the argument is that an agreement to perform a specific service - of some value - in exchange for the appointment is what is prohibited. This is regardless of whether that service does or does not have a political benefit. If Obama announced the appointment, and he subsequently quit the race, then no violation. Same facts, but there is an agreement that he will quit the race for the appointment, then there is a violation. Or, if Joe Blow donates a million dollars to the DNC, and then Obama appoints Joe Blow, there is no violation. If Obama appoints Joe Blow *because* he donated a million dollars to the DNC, that is a violation.

Likewise, with campaign finance laws. If I, as an independent spender, happen to run precisely the advertisement that the campaign wanted to run itself, there is no violation. If I run the *exact same* advertisement, because I had an agreement with them to do so, that is a violation.

Now, our primary contention is likely whether or not dropping out of the race is a service of some value to the White House - though strangely you seem to have ignored my titular example of an objective, monetary value to avoiding primary campaigning costs - but I think it is reasonably close enough that an investigation would have to be performed.

Again. The issue is not that the appointment might result in a political benefit. The issue is a quid-pro-quo to do something of value in *exchange* for the appointment.

EDIT: On the other hand, regardless of what the law says, there seems to be a consensus that this would be no big deal even if completely true. So I am probably wrong about it being bad for the White House - it likely wouldn't matter at all.

[jberryhill]

30. It's getting very close to the "double intent" principle

I see what you are saying but I don't agree that even if there was an expressed intent that "Sestak take the job and not run" that it would be distinguishable from simply "Sestak take the job". The consequences are inseparable. It is why we don't put away doctors for increasing morphine levels to deal with pain in terminal patients, even if the "pain relieving" dose crosses the line into "fatal dose", because the primary intent remains "relieving pain".

"though strangely you seem to have ignored my titular example of an objective, monetary value to avoiding primary campaigning costs"

I'm not ignoring it, but simply finding some consequential quantifiable thing down the line is also a futile exercise. It is not a "thing of value" to the administration, to anyone in it, or to Barack Obama personally, to save primary campaign expenses that would otherwise be paid by some other entity entirely. The White House wasn't paying a nickel for Specter's campaign. At that point, I have to ask you "who is receiving this 'thing of value'", and how does that apply to the statute's recitation of the relevant party receiving the "thing"?

But even at that point, you are defining "thing of value" in terms of avoiding a hypothetical future expense, and not a positive receipt.

[NoNothing]

32. So, hypothetically

If some President - let's say a Republican since I don't want this to be about Obama specifically any more - really did make a deal to appoint someone conditioned on them donating a million dollars to the RNC, you would not see any problem with that? The administration doesn't get a million dollars - officially they get nothing at all from the deal. But pretty clearly a "thing of value" has been tendered in exchange for appointment.

[jberryhill]

34. "you would not see any problem with that?"

Are you asking whether I would "see a problem" or are you asking me whether it would make out a claim under the statute?

Those are two wildly different questions.

Tendering a payment and obtaining a savings, while I realize you might see them as the same thing economically, are not the same thing in the context of this statute.

However, you have to look at what the statute says.

From the top:

"Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution,
or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in
consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in
obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the
United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than one year, or both."

The first person we meet in this statute is someone named "Whoever". That person - whoever -has to "solicit or receive, either as a political contribution or for personal emolument" this "thing of value".

Now, stop at that point for a moment. You are asking about whether "Whoever" conditions an appointment on someone else's receipt of a thing of value - either as a political contribution or personal emolument. It's not literally in this statute.

But, let's continue with the text:

"in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office"

So, you are saying that Sestak approached, not Obama (who could make the appointment and thus does not need to exercise a promise of support or use of influence), but someone other than Obama and said, "Hey, I'll save the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee a million bucks if you exercise your influence or support me in gaining an appointment?"

Because, in your economic fungibility argument, you are essentially saying that the White House would have "solicited or received" from Sestak the opportunity to save money on the Specter campaign.

Not only is that a bizarre consideration for them to place at Sestak's feet, and completely irrelevant to any conceivable personal motivation of his it might inspire, but the rest of the world is going on about how getting Sestak out of the race had pure "political value". To tease out of that situation that the primary intent here was simply to save money, and that saving money constitutes a solicitation or receipt of said value on the part of the White House, is not only a stretch, but is also not a credible motivation.

You have found some consequential economic effect to... someone... and I see that you are trying to then re-connect that consequential effect back to the statutory language, but it fails in (a) not being a "solicitation or receipt" of that effect from the person offered the job, and (b) not being creditable to the account of the person you have making the "solicitation or receipt".

You're doing a creditable job, though.

If I was offered an administrative job, I'd probably run out and buy a new suit for my first meeting. My tailor would receive money from me, but I'm really not paying him for the sake of securing influence in obtaining the appointment. That's about where you are here.

But looping back to "what I see a problem with", we are here talking about this one, of several, statutes relating to selling appointments. I haven't read them all but, by golly, I'm getting pretty familiar with this one. Whether your situation is addressed by some other statute, I don't know. Sometimes these questions can become like discussing a murder law and having someone ask, "So if I commit rape, it's okay?"

[NoNothing]

35. The exercise of the appointment power IS a use of influence

Otherwise, the statute is meaningless. Presumably any influence sold by government officials would be otherwise lawfully exercised, else it would not be necessary for the statute to criminalize it. If it is not, then a President could literally just auction off the appointments to the highest bidders and pocket the proceeds without violating the law, because no "influence" was used. Right?

[jberryhill]

36. You did exactly what I warned you not to do

No, that would be a violation of Section 201. Paragraph 2(c)(1)(A) to be precise.

We are talking about influence peddling here - Section 211.

If you want to talk about direct bribery to induce an official act, then we can re-start the discussion at Section 201.

But this is the dopiest form of legal argument there is, and is exactly what I told you not to do.

You want to talk about a murder statute, then don't go on about how "it doesn't penalize anyone for rape". No, a murder statute doesn't do that.

Good golly. There is an entire US criminal code in Title 18 to play with. Pick a statute and we'll talk.

But, please, don't set up a hypothetical which is a crime under Section 201 and complain that it is not a crime under Section 211.

YOU ARE CORRECT - if Obama auctions off appointments for his personal gain, then he HAS NOT committed an offense under 18 USC 211. ZOMG! But that's why we have a separate statute dealing with payments in consideration for the direct exercise of official powers - i.e. Section 201. Section 211 - the one you picked - deals with influence peddling.

Can you guess why I predicted you were going to make this error?

So, let's clear the board and start over:

Could you PLEASE cite THE STATUTE you believe may have been violated?

For completeness, here is the relevant portion of Section 201 to your hypothetical:

----
18 USC 201:

c) Whoever—

(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—

(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official

-----

Do you want to talk about 201 or 211?

[NoNothing]

39. Fair enough

That was a bad example. I haven't read all of Title 18. Since you are evidently more familiar with it than I am, are you aware of any statute that would prevent the scenario where money is explicitly solicited for a third party which provides only tangential benefits to the solicitor? Assume for the sake of example an explicit solicitation from a Republican office-holder to donate large sums to the RNC. You're correct that Section 211 doesn't specifically apply in this circumstance, but it is still clearly a quid pro quo.

[jberryhill]

44. "but it is still clearly a quid pro quo"

I have already told you that I do not believe any law was broken, under any version of facts that have been proposed relative to the situation.

This conversation started with your contention of illegal activity.

I asked you to cite a statute supporting your contention.

I'm guessing at this point we have milked Section 211 dry, and haven't found a violation.

I'm also not teaching a semester course here, but am more interested in addressing the contention of some that for the president to offer someone a job, and to be politically motivated to do so, constitutes a violation of some law, somewhere.

So, this is the only hypothetical I'm going to answer for you, because I'm more interested in actual events.

You are looking for Section 210.

-----
§ 210. Offer to procure appointive public office

Whoever pays or offers or promises any money or thing of value, to any person, firm, or corporation in consideration of the use or promise to use any influence to procure any appointive office or place under the United States for any person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
-----

To fit this to the Sestak situation, then you would need to hypothesize that Sestak proposed "saving" the DSCC a bundle, and that this opportunity for "savings" would be equivalent to an offer of money or a thing of value.

However, what Sestak seems to have said is that he was offered a job. That would appear to be a foundational fact, since if he were seeking one, you'd think he would have taken one.

Here's the whole bribery shebang for you:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_11.html

Pick one and run with it.

[NoNothing]

45. I disagree with you inasmuch

As I do think a promise to save a third party a lot of money of which the solicitor is a member, and receives substantial support from, is of sufficient value to the solicitor to constitute a "thing of value," rendering solicitation of such a technical violation of either 211, if the solicitor is not the officeholder himself, or 201 if it is. Of course, it ultimately doesn't matter because evidently as a practical matter this kind of thing is not enforced in any case. But thanks for your replies, it was an interesting conversation. I may take some time this weekend to familiarize myself with the Title.

[jberryhill]

46. If you do...

Then read some of the case law applying Section 211.

You'll find it to be enlightening, since it turns out that most statutes have been interpreted and applied in a number of ways which may differ from your opinion of what a clause means upon a bare reading of the text.

Another hint would be to consider the fact that people who have been involved in politics for any length of time are intimately familiar with how these statutes are interpreted and applied. This is not something obscure or new to them.

If you go way back to some primary threads, you'll see discussions of "Obama should announce in advance who his cabinet members will be". There's a reason why that sage DU advice was not taken.

[mkultra]

18. dropping out of a race is not a legal "thing of value"

That assumption is what makes you wrong.

[jberryhill]

19. Can you imagine the consequences....

Every acceptance of an appointment would be deemed a forbearance of some other employment as legal consideration for taking the appointment. Every appointment would be illegal.

[Drunken Irishman]

29. Of course...whether it was politically or personally motivated.

Obama chose my governor, Jon Huntsman, a Republican, to serve as the Ambassador to China. Some wondered if he was removing Huntsman from running in 2012 because he, as a moderate Republican, could prove to be a political hurdle for Obama in the future.

Under this poster's claims, Obama broke the law.

[rocktivity]

21. DING DING DING! Mkultra, you're our grand prize winner

Dropping out of a race is not a legal "thing of value"...

I agree. You could say that it would have been POLITICALLY valuable to Obama for Sestak to have taken the job, but that's not the same thing. This is not a bribe or a quid pro quo, just more Rethug hysteria.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Drunken Irishman]

25. It's good to see a DUer whose name is literal.

We have something in common! :toast:

[phleshdef]

10. Sestak's HIMSELF SAID he was "being courted to run the day that news broke" that Specter SWITCHED.

Those aren't my words, those aren't the words of the blogger, those are Sestak's words. The NEWS BROKE of Specters switch a month AFTER someone had ALL READY been appointed to be the Sec. of the Navy. That means Sestak's story is IMPOSSIBLE which means Sestak wasn't telling the truth. There is no way around that unless you are going to get so desperate you start arguing time travel theories.

[rocktivity]

23. And if Sestak was offered A DIFFERENT job

(ASSISTANT to the secretary of the Navy, for instance) he wouldn't even be guilty of lying!

:headbang:
rocktivity

[butterfly77]

26. Everytime I hear this story ..

I keep asking SO WHAT! Who gives a damn are we suppose to prosecute or impeach for this shit! Over the years I have heard many times the CONS were making deals like mCconnell telling someone not to run for one seat other the other while they place them on certain committees or they are behind doors putting their people in strategic areas or on boards of these companies.
The target is: Rahm and Scarborough hypes this bullshit everyday now. The Dems on the show all act scared as hell,nothing new..

[BeyondGeography]

5. I wonder how smart Sestak feels now about pushing this story in the first place

Instead of focusing on Toomey and a winnable race, it's consuming his campaign. Still plenty of time to regroup, but he would be in a much better place if he had simply kept his mouth shut.

[butterfly77]

27. I knew Sestak would be a problem because..

he is too damn happy,he wanted the seat so bad he wasn't thinking about who in the hell he is dealing with.He was bordering on a Dean moment on the night of the primary.

[AllentownJake]

54. Now are people starting to see my Arlen vote? nt.

[frazzled]

8. Additionally, SecNav must have been retired from active duty for 5 years

(2) A person may not be appointed as Secretary of the Navy within
five years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a
regular component of an armed force.

http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title10/10usc5013.html

He's close to that now (having been removed by Adm. Mullen in July 2005), but he wasn't in 2009. Unless some offer of future (post-July 2010) appointment was being made, which would require removing the current Secy of the Navy.

[Phx_Dem]

12. As long as he was qualified for whatever job he was offered, I don't see the problem.

This whole issue is a big yawner for me.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. +1.

Seriously, this shit happens all the time. It ain't JUST because Hillary Clinton was qualified for the job that she became Secretary of State. There are a lot of people qualified for that job.

[Cha]

42. So what job was he offered? nt

[jberryhill]

47. GOP Talking Point Generator - He Accepted /nt

[Cha]

52. ..

Seems to be.

[AllentownJake]

53. One of the reasons I did not vote for Sestak was this issue

Seriously, he was implicating the administration in a federal offense to score primary points.

Gosh and you all call me a hater.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

55. Where did the whole "Secretary of the Navy" thing come from?

I don't see him confirming that was the actual job offered in the MTP transcript. He seemed to refuse to confirm or deny if that was the position:
************************************************************************************************************
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37279599/ns/meet_the_press/page/3/

MR. GREGORY: Yes or no, straightforward question. Were you, were you offered a job, and what was the job?

REP. SESTAK: I was offered a job, and I answered that.

MR. GREGORY: You said no, you wouldn't take the job. Was it the secretary of the Navy?

REP. SESTAK: Right. And I also said, "Look, I'm getting into this...

MR. GREGORY: Was it the secretary of the Navy job?

REP. SESTAK: Anything that go--goes beyond that is others--for others to talk about.

***********************************************************************************************************

When he says "Right" - it seems to be in response to "You said no, you wouldn't take the job."

I say that because Gregory himself does not appear to take it as confirmation of the Secretary of the Navy, since he asks
AGAIN "Was it the Secreatary of the Navy job?"

So when was that specific position mentioned for the first time, and by who?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

56. Here is an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer from February that gives a synopsis

and history for anyone who needs to catch-up.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/84835732.html

Sestak holds to story of job offer
By Thomas Fitzgerald
Inquirer Staff Writer
Posted on Sat, Feb. 20, 2010

In the face of a White House denial, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak stuck to his story yesterday that the Obama administration offered him a "high-ranking" government post if he would not run against U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania's Democratic primary.