Obama White House probe of Obama White House finds no Obama White House impropriety on Sestak

Why not ask some relevant Bush administration officials to see what they think?

Former Bush administration chief ethics lawyer Richard Painter:

The job offer may have been a way of getting Sestak out of Specter's way, but this also is nothing new. Many candidates for top Administration appointments are politically active in the President's political party. Many are candidates or are considering candidacy in primaries. White House political operatives don't like contentious fights in their own party primaries and sometimes suggest jobs in the Administration for persons who otherwise would be contenders. For the White House, this is usually a "win-win" situation, giving the Administration politically savvy appointees in the Executive Branch and fewer contentious primaries for the Legislative Branch. This may not be best for voters who have less choice as a result, and Sestak thus should be commended for saying "no". The job offer, however, is hardly a "bribe" when it is one of two alternatives that are mutually exclusive.

Then how about Bush's former political director:

Ron Kaufman, who served as President George H.W. Bush's White House political director, "said it would not be surprising for a White House to use political appointments to accomplish a political goal. 'Tell me a White House that didn't do this, back to George Washington,' Mr. Kaufman said."

How about Peter R. Zeidenberg who during the Bush administration was an Assistant District Attorney in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, an Assistant US Attorney in the District of Columbia and at the Department of Justice Public Integrity Section

Peter Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor with the Justice Department's Public Integrity unit, saying "Talk about criminalizing the political process!... It would be horrible precedent if what really truly is political horsetrading were viewed in the criminal context of: is this a corrupt bribe?"

Who is saying there was a crime, have you looked at them for political motives too?

What it's interesting is the persistant claims of Mr. Sestak.

I am so glad that Specter is retired to the benches.

What it's interesting is the persistant claims of Mr. Sestak.

Actually he has not said anything more about it. He said he was offered a job and that he chose not to accept it. He has refused to provide any more details.

Well, Stak should never say what he is afraid to continue with his claims.

I am more interested in where all the money goes if there is a common denominator at the end receiving our tax money.

This is another distraction.

I am more interested in where all the money goes if there is a common denominator at the end receiving our tax money.

Which this has absolutely nothing to do with.

This is another distraction.

Its a bit hard to follow your sentence structure, but I agree, the Republican attempt to make an issue out of this is a distraction.

The Independent Counsel statute was eliminated by the GOP after the never ending Clinton investigations.

Originally created by the Independent Counsel Act (1978) and the Ethics in Government Act Amendments of 1982 (96 Stat. 2039), January 3, 1983
Reauthorized for five years by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1987 (101 Stat. 1293), December 15, 1987
Lapsed, December 15, 1992, by failure of reauthorization
Reinstituted by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994 (PL 103-270), June 30, 1994
Expired at midnight on June 30, 1999

Now if you are referring to the Attorney General, feel free to ask the attorney general and they may or may not opt to do so.

sscott,

Do you mean that the mirror image of Waxman asking for hearings all the time will be in the right?

At this point if he does not, it becomes a political hammer to swing at the Democrats between now and November.

Which is exactly what the GOP sees this as - yet another political distraction.

This matter needs to be resolved. Tampering with an election is serious. On par with Watergate.

LOL. Talk about a complete and total lack of any realistic perspective at all. Do you have any clue what happened during Watergate!?

Go ahead and try to make a rational comparison?

Did you think when the Reagan administration offered a sitting Congressman a job not to run, that was also like watergate? Get a grip.

What bothers me is the length of time to justify that it was a missunderstanding.

I bet that all the lawyers are running wild writing the language of the WH release

Watergate was about a cover up of a crime. What crime? Tampering with an election.

Do you have any knowledge of history?

Lets see there was felony burglary, conspiracy, perjury, wiretapping, lying to congress, misuse of national security assests, CREEP slush fund, fraud, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, etc.

For example, the President was on tape planning to use the CIA on fabricated national security grounds to stop the FBI from investigating.

vs.

A job offer to a man considering running for Senate.

Some of you keep forgetting a major point here - The DNC asked Sestak NOT to run against Specter and he refused. Obviously bigger guns had to be brought in to protect that 60th vote in the Senate (card check!!!)

Nixon went down for the coverup.

Nice revisionist history. Do you have any knowledge about the extent of what actually occurred during Watergate?!

Nixon resigned because of the whole thing - he was involved in the planning of a burglary, conspiracy AND a cover up. He resigne first and foremost because the release of the tapes - have you read any of the transcripts. One example

Setting that asside, there has been not even a tiny tiny little bit of any cover up let alone an illegal cover up in this instance. Not even an iota of evidence of an illegal cover up.

Ummm, have you watched the news today? Not the fake news, but the real news on Fox?

It would be sad indeed if you believed the only place to find "real news" was on Fox, but it might begin to explain your poor appreciation of Watergate history.

Of course, Fox while generlly spun and politically slanted, often carries news of interest, to the extent that it is relevant, why did you not provide a link?

Some of you keep forgetting a major point here - The DNC asked Sestak NOT to run against Specter and he refused.

God only knows why you imagine this to be a "major point" its not exactly a State secret that at one point the DNC preferred not to have a primary challenge.

Catch22 - the MAJOR POINT was the someone higher up than the DNC needed to get involved. But of course you ignored my last sentence when you posted 4.16

But of course you ignored my last sentence when you posted 4.16

You mean your subjective unsubstatiated speculation that this must be connected? Everyone knew that the DNC likes to avoid a primary fight, and could draw whatever conclusions they felt approrpiate.

Despite the total lack of evidence even if we assume for the sake of argument the DNC asked the White House to offer him a job it still doesnt make offering a man a job illegal under these circumstances any more it made the previous Presidents actions automatically illegal because the RNC wanted something.

Offering a sitting congressman a bribe of a job to not run for an office is illegal.

Yes it is. Of course this was not a bribe. See the difference?

Trying to blame others is just deflection.

There is no one to blame, so your comment is deflection.

It's like saying since OJ got away with murder, that you should get away with it too, a ridiculous argument, and a great analogy.

Its a terrible analogy since I have not pointed to anyone who got away with bribery.
Its also terrible since you falsely since what OJ did was murder - what happened here was that someone was considered for a job and the only people that believe that it is obviously bribery are idelogical and partisan zealots.

It wasnt bribery when the Reagan administration did it, it wasnt bribery when the Bush administration did, it was not bribery when Obama administration raised the possibilty of a job with someone who was contemplating running for office, see how that works. Its not bribery.

BTW: You still failed to point to any relevant "real news" from Fox or anyone else.

It is a crime to influence an election. Offering someone a high political position so they won't run is either influencing or committing conspiracy to influence an election. OK class, next week we do 2+2=4, I'm afraid some of you may not be ready.

No difference, this was a bribe, law experts have weighed in, including prosecutors.

Yes a lot of experts have weighed in and said it clearly is NOT a bribe and that it is ridiculous to do so. I started with several Bush administration officials who said so.

So where are these alleged unbiased and objective law experts and prosecutors you believe have so weighed in?

Can you read plain english?

I sure do. Can you understand that cutting and pasting the same comment over is totally non-responsive and unhelpful? Why not address the question?

I also know how to read law. I also can tell you that your belief that these circumstances are covered are neither included in the plain English nor the law. There is no benefit of special consideration as defined by the law. Do you know how to read the law?

Is that your way of saying that when you claimed that legal experts and prosecutors had weighed in, that you actually dont know any?

I will ask again.

So where are these alleged unbiased and objective law experts and prosecutors you believe have so weighed in?

So you found a few people who said it happens but even after deliberately going out and trying to find people who will definitively call it a crime the best they could find is it may/might fall within the statute?

So much for your assertion of plain english.

Care to provide where you found these quotes?

CNS is a hugely biased source who goes out of their way to find biased sources and then try to quote the most sensational language they can find - they still had a hard time finding anytone to say that it is clearly a crime.

Face it, there are legal scholars, and those of us who can read plain english that know that a crime has been committed.

None of the persons you quoted above said the knew a crime had been committed. Where are these unbiased objective legal scholars?

Read the law for yourself. Surely you've had at least high school english and know the meaning of the words.

I have read the law and the case law - have you? There is no precedent for such a prosecution of this standard practice. Some people "read" what they want to see.

Now there are two. Sestak and Romanoff. Plain english, even a cave man, or a liberal could understand it.

Repeating the same words over and over do not make them any more true. Adding puerile insults that underline your ignorance of the law doesnt help either.

By your approach there is not two but hundreds, Reagan, Bush, etc. etc etc You continue to ignore the fact that following the law is not a favor its not condideration its not a reward - you are requred to do so.

FACT: Anyone accepting the positions in the Federal government under consideration are prohibited by Federal law from running for partisan office.

FACT: Following the law is not consideration, reward or favor.

There was no consideration favor or reward. Following the law is not a reward or favor - if they took the job they were prohibited by Federal law from running for office. I dont know if you can understand that or not. Did you know that the jobs they were discussing that as a matter of law the person that has that job is prohibited by law from running for office?

Actually the only person who asked for consideratin that was not reguired by law was Senator Gregg who asked that the governor promise to appoint a Democrat.

Anyone that reads it and doesn't understand it, doesn't understand basic english.

More bull@!$%# repetition. Why havent you found any unbiased objective sources that say the same thing?

You claimed to have numerous objective and unbiased legal scholoars who agree with you and say that they absolutely know the law was violated. Where are they? So far you provided a handful who said that it might possibly be covered.

And now you deliberately try to misinterpret the law.

Pointing out your fallacy and biase in reading it is hardly misinterpreting it.

It is historical fact that this kind of deal has happenend throughout history and never prosecuted or even seriously talked about prosecution. Why? Because it is not and has not been illegal. The law hasnt changed the only difference is the people who hate the President and will try anything to discredit him.

Doesn't matter who did it before. If they did it was wrong.

Wrong is a subjective moral judgment. When the issue is whether or not it is criminal IT is relevant how the law has been interpreted for decades. You dont have to go to lawschool to know that we live in a common law system. If you have the same law for decades and people doing the same thing over and over without an eyebrow or waring, THEN have a politically motivated witchhunt like this one - history is very relevant.

So lets hear from some objective unbiased scholars who like you believe its obvious?

There are classes at your local community college that should help.

You should review the honor code. Unfortunately there are no classes to help with blind partisan driven bias that lead some people believe the absolute truths of their subjective opinions.

Sorry catch you are wrong. It is in simple english. It is not a COH violation to point out that if you can not understand that simple english, that there is help for you available.

I am still wating for you to provide some objective scholars that agree with you that this is a matter of simple english as you contend. Its not as I have demonstrated. If it were so simple, why are you unable to find any objective expert that says the same thing you are? I provided numerous examples of Bush administration officials who say it is not and has never been a crime. Your examples from a partisan source, merely say it possibly could be.

Perhaps you should try going to one of the nations top law schools and pass a few State bars before trying to give more simplistic legislation interpretation sermons.

I notice you completely failed to addres the simple point that following the law is not something of value or consideration.

Time for a secial prosecutor, if one is not named, after November there will be hearings in Congress by the new Republican committees that will hold the power.

I have no doubt the GOP will engage in hypocritical patisan witchhunts if they get control in Congress. If were anywhere near as simplistic as you apparently believe they should start with Senator Judd Gregg. Unlike the Obama administration and every other administration in history - his request for consideration of appointing a Republican of course is not required by law - so if anyone violated the law - he did.

Called your bluff and you resort to insult, adhominem and shouting elitist

The book I published in 2000, about the Constitution by the way, deals with elitists like yourself. You believe that unless someone has gone to Harvard, that laws are far too complex for we the people to understand.

Bull@!$%#, never said it and your psychological projection is tiresome. YOU brought up experts first, you failed to back up what you wrote, and now you accuse me of being an elitist for calling you bluff!? You seem to confuse someone pointing out that YOU have misread the law with the totally different claim that no one can read the law - pardom me but you dont represent everyone and you were the one making the baseless allegations the need for education.

You don't have to be a @!$%#ing scholar to see that the laws have been broken.

YOU WROTE:

No difference, this was a bribe, law experts have weighed in, including prosecutors.

4.21

Face it, there are legal scholars, and those of us who can read plain english that know that a crime has been committed.

4.29

Your attempt to change the subject through ad homimem and psychological projection is dishonest. You brought up experts - when I pointed out that you failed to provide any examples you trot out the elitist card. Dishonest and hypocritical.

You have provided no objective assessments to back up your simplistic subjective assertions. You claimed that prosecutors and legal experts and others had all spoken. I pointed that you failed to provide any to back up your simplistic claims. So stop throwing insults and back up what you wrote.

Wow you found a single person who agrees! 

Why do you believe that finding one person versus many some how means you are owed an an apology?

Linda Monk says its a crime, and you want a parade?

You found a single commentator who did not address the issue as to whether following the law can be of value.  Following the law is not a benefit.

Also from your linkP>

There were also many comments sayng that Monk was wrong.

According to one commenter, a database search shows that this law has never been used as a principal charge, only an "add on" when money bribes were involved. Another concern is that the law is overbroad, a fatal defect in criminal prosecutions.

"The problem with the so-called bribery theory, or quid pro quo theory, is that automatically if you take those jobs, any full-time government job, you're prohibited from running for public office under the Hatch Act," said Painter. "So it's a necessary position subsequent to taking the job... you have to withdraw from the Senate race. So I don't see how you could describe that as a quid pro quo at all."

Richard Painter Professor of Law U. Minn. (former Bush ethics advisor)

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said that criminal allegations in the Sestak case are "ludicrous." She points out that there has never been a prosecution under the 1972 law cited by the Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans

This is the reason why ethics lawyers can read the text of the statutes, which seem to be clear, and conclude that no prosecutor in his or her right mind would ever bring a case against a White House for doing what the Obama White House did

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."

"As the Republican Party works itself into a lather over the Obama administration's offer of a job to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Penn) in exchange for him not entering the Pennsylvania Senate primary, seasoned political observers, historians, and lawyers are responding with veritable yawns."

consideration, favor, or reward

Following the law and the requirments of the Hatch Act is NOT consideration favor or reward.

The Hatch Act prohibits most federal employees from running for office.

Yes anyone can read the law - some people like you fail to appreciate what some of the words mean. Following the law is not consideration, a favor or a reward as much as you might fervently believe that it is.

Without "consideration favor or reward" there is NO violation of the statute.

Again, you take an elitist stance, that somehow people can't understand the words.

Again you resort to empty insults. Its also elitist of you to assume that just because you fail to understand the words, you assume that means other people can not.

Everyone can understand.

Sorry, we do, and playing the pigs from the book "Animal Farm" is doing your side damage now.

LOL. Who do you imgagine "we" to be and what makes you imagine you speak for anyone but yourself. I do not imagine what side you imagine I represent in your imagination, but the only one claiming superior ability to define language and to claim the inferiority of one side or the other is you.

YOu are the only one playing the pigs game my side is more equal than your side. I am speaking for myself and pointing out the flaws in your assertions.

It is you that is claiming that we con't possibly understand the law, that we must find experts to interpret them for us.

Wow. You just keep repeating the same false assertions. Never said it never wrote it. That you feel the need to keep repeating such false claims shows how weak your position is.

And your reference to the Hatch Act does not apply in either case, since Both Romanoff and Sestak already held elected office.

Wrong again. If someone accepts a job covered by the hatch act then they must leave elective office and cannot run.

I have not asked you to provide experts as you do me.

YOU were the first to calim experts had weighed in and wrote: "No difference, this was a bribe, law experts have weighed in, including prosecutors."

I provided a response to show that you were wrong.

S

o your assertion that I feel like my side is more equal than yours is false.

So why the juvenile suggestions to get classes at community college? It appears again you can not keep up with your own spin.

You brought up experts and claimed they had weighed in - I pointed out you were wrong, and your response is to claim I am elitist with my use of experts. Nice hypocrtical double standard.

You claimed that your interpretation was the only correct interpretation and that anyone who disagreed needed remedial English - I ponited out you were wrong and again you shout elitist and claim that education is irrelvant.

I believe, as do others, including experts, that the law was broken.

First you said it was obvious and there was no other possible interpretation. You proivded a single person who happened to write a book and has a JD.

Sound like a good reason to get a special prosecutor to look at it, and decide between the two sides.

There can always be two sides and more. Why not start with Judd Gregg then since in his case he requested something not required by law? W

This is a partisan witch hunt to interpret a law to apply to something that all experts agree it has NEVER been applied and all experts agree it has happend before.

Why not start with felonies and war crimes before we start with misdemeanors that have never been prosecuted?

We have a lot of experts that believe water boarding is torture, including John McCain. We know the Bush administration authorized waterboarding and we know torture is illegal. So why not start with a felony first?

All for it. It would be the end of the Democratic party to do it. Because they were complicit in all of it.

"Complicit" in what? Blood on their hands? Again you show your imagination more than substance. End of the Democratic party!? You have really drunk the kool aid deep.

Are you trying to blame the Democratic Party for the Bush administrations violations of laws against torture? Are you trying to blame the Democrats for the Bush administrations violation of laws against spying against Americans without a warrant? Try relaying some objective facts.

And saying they did it first, is no excuse for the "most transparent" administration in history.

Nope, they said it was not a crime and has never been. They came out and said exactly what happened which is exactly what transparency means. Again you provide no objective facts and a lot of loose partisan conclusions.

If a special prosecutor is not named, which it seems it won't be, then after the Repubs take over the house and the Senate, there will be congressional investigations. Probably for years.

You think there will be years investigating an alleged misdemeanor?
We will see, but you are right the GOP does tend to speciallize in hypocritical partisan witch hunts given the chance.

kjmgirl

Good one!