Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With the Sestak issue coming to a head, the Obama administration is going to face its most difficult situation (greater than the Gulf oil spill) which may jeopardize the presidency. The parallels to the Nixon Watergate scandal are striking, but the Obama scandal is probably greater in magnitude.
1.The Watergate scandal initially involved a petty burglarly, but escalated into an impeachable offense from the coverup. The Sestak case involves initally the accusation of a FEDERAL CRIME, as well as a potential coverup.
2. Nixon did not know about the Watergate burglary initially, but chose to cover it up. That was his crime. Obama appears to have initiated the federal crime AND covered his tracks. Which is worse?
3. Nixon did not have the cover of the media or the justice department to cover for him. Obama has the advantage of a media that will not report on the event, as well as a corrupt justice department that will not initiate an investigation. Obama has the further advantage of a democratic senate and congress that will not push for a grand jury independent of the justice department- it pays to have friends when committing crimes.
Let's see if Obama dodges this one. It appears as though he was complicent, or ordered, a federal criminal act. However, one needs the investigation and prosecution of this act to enforce the law. Under the current administration, senate, and congress, I doubt that anything will be done. However, among those who are "undecided" and remaining "moderates" in the US, it questions the tactics and ethics of an administration that appears more and more to be "above the law".
Sorry to dampen the mood but it's already been put to bed. There's nothing illegal with offering an advisory position.
"Sestak, who had said a job was offered but had provided no details, acknowledged Friday that he had had the conversation with Clinton. He said the former president told him he should stay in the U.S. House and perhaps join a presidential board, either involving intelligence or defense matters to use his background as a Navy officer."
"Previous Democratic and Republican administrations, "motivated by the same goals, discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office." The report said such actions aren't illegal nor unethical."
With the Sestak issue coming to a head, the Obama administration is going to face its most difficult situation (greater than the Gulf oil spill) which may jeopardize the presidency. The parallels to the Nixon Watergate scandal are striking, but the Obama scandal is probably greater in magnitude.
1.The Watergate scandal initially involved a petty burglarly, but escalated into an impeachable offense from the coverup. The Sestak case involves initally the accusation of a FEDERAL CRIME, as well as a potential coverup.
2. Nixon did not know about the Watergate burglary initially, but chose to cover it up. That was his crime. Obama appears to have initiated the federal crime AND covered his tracks. Which is worse?
3. Nixon did not have the cover of the media or the justice department to cover for him. Obama has the advantage of a media that will not report on the event, as well as a corrupt justice department that will not initiate an investigation. Obama has the further advantage of a democratic senate and congress that will not push for a grand jury independent of the justice department- it pays to have friends when committing crimes.
Let's see if Obama dodges this one. It appears as though he was complicent, or ordered, a federal criminal act. However, one needs the investigation and prosecution of this act to enforce the law. Under the current administration, senate, and congress, I doubt that anything will be done. However, among those who are "undecided" and remaining "moderates" in the US, it questions the tactics and ethics of an administration that appears more and more to be "above the law".
Just wait until the next Congress, controlled by real Americans is sworn in.
Sorry to dampen the mood but it's already been put to bed. There's nothing illegal with offering an advisory position.
"Sestak, who had said a job was offered but had provided no details, acknowledged Friday that he had had the conversation with Clinton. He said the former president told him he should stay in the U.S. House and perhaps join a presidential board, either involving intelligence or defense matters to use his background as a Navy officer."
"Previous Democratic and Republican administrations, "motivated by the same goals, discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office." The report said such actions aren't illegal nor unethical."
There is something illegal about offering any job funded in part or whole by Congressionally-appropriated funding, not matter what the job is or even if it is non-paid, in exchange for any "political" consideration, such as dropping out of a race. Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 600.
There is something illegal about offering any job funded in part or whole by Congressionally-appropriated funding, not matter what the job is or even if it is non-paid, in exchange for any "political" consideration, such as dropping out of a race. Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 600.
That's your interpretation. Good luck with that. "Political".
I said yes because I can't stand the fraud in chief. I doubt it will happen but we can all have wishful thinking.It would be amusing to see the ghetto's riot though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
