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.
<Companies> cannot legally offer <government officials> offers of employment because of the appearance that the <company> will unduly influence some <transaction>. This is done because people don't like the appearance of third-world influence peddling.
<Obama and his minions> cannot legally offer <candidates> offers of employment because of the appearance that the <DNC> will unduly influence some <election>. This is done because people don't like the appearance of third-world influence peddling.
Even if Obama can do this, there's the issue that he should not do this, because this obviously looks like some third world corrupt dealings that it is.
The reason I phrased the above the way I did was because there is existing legal precedent for such situations and very specific moral reasons why those type of laws exist. The left apparently feels morals and standards don't apply to Obama.
Why try to keep people out of primaries? It doesn't divide the party unless it results in a Joe Lieberman/Charlie Crist situation, and that is VERY rare. Primaries produce better candidates.
The actions of the Obama administration getting involved in elections definitely bothered me.
Its pretty common for the WH to support the sitting Senator when they are getting a Primary challenge. You typically won't see them get involved when its an open race, but typically will support the Incumbent when its a Primary challenge (regardless if its a GOP or Dem administration). I really had no problems with the WH supporting Specter and I was pulling for Sestak in that race and glad he won.
Its pretty common for the WH to support the sitting Senator when they are getting a Primary challenge. You typically won't see them get involved when its an open race, but typically will support the Incumbent when its a Primary challenge (regardless if its a GOP or Dem administration). I really had no problems with the WH supporting Specter and I was pulling for Sestak in that race and glad he won.
Oh agreed, but a simple endorsement is all that is necessary. The steps the administration took in the Specter and especially the Gillibrand races to try to keep people out just made me roll my eyes as unnecessary.
Trust me, I didn't lose sleep over it & was definitely glad Sestak won his primary. Just hopefully Obama learns his lesson for the 2014 midterms.
<Companies> cannot legally offer <government officials> offers of employment because of the appearance that the <company> will unduly influence some <transaction>. This is done because people don't like the appearance of third-world influence peddling.
<Obama and his minions> cannot legally offer <candidates> offers of employment because of the appearance that the <DNC> will unduly influence some <election>. This is done because people don't like the appearance of third-world influence peddling.
Even if Obama can do this, there's the issue that he should not do this, because this obviously looks like some third world corrupt dealings that it is.
The appearance that the DNC will unduly influence some elections????
The DNC and RNC and every other political party exists for the sole reason to influence elections.
The President, being a member of a political party, has influence on elections simply by behaving as a President. Every President since John Adams has tried to influence elections. It is not the appearance or even the fact that elections are influenced. It is that some methods are more questionable than others.
The appearance that the DNC will unduly influence some elections????
The DNC and RNC and every other political party exists for the sole reason to influence elections.
The President, being a member of a political party, has influence on elections simply by behaving as a President. Every President since John Adams has tried to influence elections. It is not the appearance or even the fact that elections are influenced. It is that some methods are more questionable than others.
influence is the wrong word here, it's more like manipulate the outcome.
It does contain words that have separate meanings legally from common usage meanings. Legally, you would have to prove that the non-compensated positions offered were offered as a "consideration, favor or reward" for dropping out of the race. And Legally, the proffer would have to be pretty baldly stated to meet the legal requirements. This was a new administration with literally thousands of positions to fill. And yet unpaid government positions were offered? How much value would those positions have? Because if they don't have any value, it would be difficult in a court of law to establish such a position as a "consideration, favor or reward." If the candidates were qualified, and the positions suited their particular interest, then the administration is free to offer them such positions.
This pretty much sums up the Sestak case, as parsed from the statute:
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position - to any candidate - in connection with any primary election
Larry Kane: “Is it true that you were offered a high ranking job in the administration in a bid to get you to drop out of the primary against Arlen Specter?”
Sestak: “Yes.”
This fits within the four corners of the 18 U.S.C. § 600 statute.
Name me another example like this, where a president's administration offered a position in the federal government to a person running in a state primary, to get them to drop out of the primary. Besides the possibility of Ramanoff that is.
This pretty much sums up the Sestak case, as parsed from the statute:
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position - to any candidate - in connection with any primary election
Larry Kane: “Is it true that you were offered a high ranking job in the administration in a bid to get you to drop out of the primary against Arlen Specter?”
Sestak: “Yes.”
This fits within the four corners of the 18 U.S.C. § 600 statute.
Name me another example like this, where a president's administration offered a position in the federal government to a person running in a state primary, to get them to drop out of the primary. Besides the possibility of Ramanoff that is.
Ronald Reagan to S.I Hayakawa in Califronia in a Primary Reagan's daughter was also running in
This pretty much sums up the Sestak case, as parsed from the statute:
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position - to any candidate - in connection with any primary election
Larry Kane: “Is it true that you were offered a high ranking job in the administration in a bid to get you to drop out of the primary against Arlen Specter?”
Sestak: “Yes.”
This fits within the four corners of the 18 U.S.C. § 600 statute.
Name me another example like this, where a president's administration offered a position in the federal government to a person running in a state primary, to get them to drop out of the primary. Besides the possibility of Ramanoff that is.
A high ranking job in the administration that pays nothing??????
What's the value of that job? Evidently not much. Sestak doesn't even remember what the job was, "um, advisor on an executive board, I think intel, maybe". I remember when I am offered a job when it's a firm job offer.
And the administration CAN offer jobs to candidates. Your excerpt from the statute is incomplete. And I don't even know why you are arguing so vehemently with me. I stated outright in my first post that I think this was shady. Shady, but not illegal. I'm not defending the Obama administration, I'm saying that they were careful not to break the law. When the title of the thread tries to draw a parallel between this and Watergate. What Nixon did was break the law. You can cite the laws as often as possible, but unless someone from Obama's administration was unbelievably gauche in their approach, NO laws were broken here.
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.
