Who says bribery is against the law????

[newtothegame]

The B.S that is apparently coming to light is so blatant that it is almsot laughable. Sad part is, they can do as they please. I seriously hope there is further investigations into these allegations.....

White House Has Violated Federal Election Law


If Hopey Change means anything, it's that Chicago-style politics have gone national. Let's see if the whole country really wants to live with the sort of government that entails. Via The American Spectactor (http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/22/specter-race-scandal-sestak-ac/):

"Whoever solicits or receives … any … 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."

— 18 USC Sec. 211 — Bribery, Graft and Conflicts of Interest: Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office"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."

— Philadelphia Inquirer, February 19, 2010


more at the link.....
http://rightwingnews.com/#post8626

[newtothegame]

U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak stands by claim White House offered him a job to keep him out of primary against Arlen Specter

By Laura Vecsey (http://connect.pennlive.com/user/lvecsey/index.html)

February 19, 2010, 5:17PM

U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak (http://joesestak.com/splash.html)stuck by his claim that he was offered a job by the White House (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/02/rep_joe_sestak_alleges_white_h.html) last summer to keep him from running against U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary.

Sestak, who trails the 30-year Senate veteran in the polls, stood by his assertion despite reports that White House officials were angered over Sestak's claim, which he made Thursday on The Larry Kane Report. (http://www.larrykane.com/2010/02/18/sestak-surprises-me-with-a-bombshell-statement/) White House officials later denied there was an offer, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/84755387.html).

The primary race between Specter and Sestak, the former Navy admiral and three-term Congressman, is expected to be closer than current polls indicate (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/pennsylvania/2010_senate_election/election_2010_pennsylvania_democratic_primary_for_ senate), in part because of Specter's unfavorable ratings and the lack of name recognition Sestak now has across Pennsylvania. Specter has bounced back up to over 50 percent support in recent polls -- the threshold for which incumbents are seen as vulnerable.

Sestak trails Specter in fundraising, but still has in excess of $5 million (http://community.post-gazette.com/blogs/earlyreturns/archive/2010/02/01/sestak-5m-on-hand.aspx) and is talking to consultants about television campaign ads, which is where political analysts expect the race to close.

Specter won the Pennsylvania Democratic Party endorsement two weeks ago and is backed by President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Gov. Ed Rendell. It is this "anointed" status by party power brokers that Sestak has taken issue with, dating back to last April when Specter switched parties after Pat Toomey entered the Republican primary.

Toomey was narrowly defeated by Specter in the 2004 Republican primary. Specter was endorsed in the closing days by former President George Bush and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum. However, Toomey had closed a 20-point poll deficit to close within 1.7 percentage points.

In September, the Denver Post reported that the White House also offered a federal job to Andrew Romanoff in exchange for not running against Governor Ritter’s appointed U.S. Senator Michael Bennett, D-CO.


http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/02/us_rep_joe_sestak_stands_by_cl.html

[PaceAdvantage]

Good thing Bush didn't try anything like this...we wouldn't have heard the end of it on the nightly news, MSNBC, etc. etc..

I haven't watched much news the past few days...is this getting any play in the MSM?

[cj's dad]

Good thing Bush didn't try anything like this...we wouldn't have heard the end of it on the nightly news, MSNBC, etc. etc..

I haven't watched much news the past few days...is this getting any play in the MSM?


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Mike, you need a vacation.

[Robert Goren]

With Keith Olbermann off the air during the Olympics, the conservatives are really having to dig deep to find something to post.;)

[johnhannibalsmith]

Not to divert from the content of the thread, but would 'Tec Goren mind if I too adopted his tag line courtesy of Rwwupl... that is pretty excellent... :D

[Robert Goren]

Go for it

[mostpost]

"Whoever solicits or receives … any … 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."
Read the above carefully. Now read it again. For this to apply, Sestak would have had to approach the White House and offer them something of value in exchange for an appointment to a high administration position. (Secretary of the Navy was mentioned in the article) By "Something of value" the statute means monetary value.
There is no law against ANY administration offering any qualified individual any administration job. Certainly, as a retired Admiral, Joe Sestak is qualified to be Secretary of the Navy.
In this case, the White House is offering something to Sestak. Something they have a legal right to offer him.
Sestak is getting a choice. He can be Secretary of the Navy; he can be a Senatorial candidate. In no circumstance can he be both. He chose to be a Senatorial Candidate.

In my opinion, if you took this case to trial it would be dismissed in the first hour.

[mostpost]

Good thing Bush didn't try anything like this...we wouldn't have heard the end of it on the nightly news, MSNBC, etc. etc..

I haven't watched much news the past few days...is this getting any play in the MSM?
I don't know about MSNBC, but I would have no problem with it. As long as the recipientof Bush's largesse were qualified for the position. Like Brownie. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[boxcar]

Read the above carefully. Now read it again. For this to apply, Sestak would have had to approach the White House and offer them something of value in exchange for an appointment to a high administration position. (Secretary of the Navy was mentioned in the article) By "Something of value" the statute means monetary value.
There is no law against ANY administration offering any qualified individual any administration job. Certainly, as a retired Admiral, Joe Sestak is qualified to be Secretary of the Navy.
In this case, the White House is offering something to Sestak. Something they have a legal right to offer him.
Sestak is getting a choice. He can be Secretary of the Navy; he can be a Senatorial candidate. In no circumstance can he be both. He chose to be a Senatorial Candidate.

In my opinion, if you took this case to trial it would be dismissed in the first hour.

You don't read too swell, do you? Firstly, Sestak would not have had to solicit anything. The WH could just as easily sought him out to cut a deal.
Furthermore, jobs have monetary value -- Some of them quite high, especially when you toss in benefits, perks, etc. And the text does say "solicit or receive". If the WH solicited him and he took (i.e. received) their offer, he would qualify on this statute.

Don't leave your mail duties, Mosty. You'd never make it as an attorney. In fact, I'm not sure how you'd survive in the real world with a real job in the private sector.

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

The craziest part is where he says it would be dismissed in an hour.

It might be appropriate to do so, but lord knows no justice is going to cost his attorney bretheren a pile of money by being expedient with a decision.

[Leonard]

Read the above carefully. Now read it again. For this to apply, Sestak would have had to approach the White House and offer them something of value in exchange for an appointment to a high administration position. (Secretary of the Navy was mentioned in the article) By "Something of value" the statute means monetary value.
There is no law against ANY administration offering any qualified individual any administration job. Certainly, as a retired Admiral, Joe Sestak is qualified to be Secretary of the Navy.
In this case, the White House is offering something to Sestak. Something they have a legal right to offer him.
Sestak is getting a choice. He can be Secretary of the Navy; he can be a Senatorial candidate. In no circumstance can he be both. He chose to be a Senatorial Candidate.

In my opinion, if you took this case to trial it would be dismissed in the first hour.

Mostpost is correct. Sestak wasn't offered anything in exchange for a vote so you can't call it bribery or anything else illegal. He was simply offered a position in the administration [to draw him away from a Senate run]. He was offered a choice -- a sure thing administration job or proceeding with a not-so-sure thing Senate run.

Not exactly the most scrupulous thing in the world but nothing extraordinary in the world of politics. It certainly isn't illegal.

[PaceAdvantage]

It certainly isn't illegal.I for one, never claimed it was...

[Leonard]

I for one, never claimed it was...

I was just addressing the thread title: "Who says bribery is against the law????"

[newtothegame]

If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Bribe ‘Em: Obama Now Trading Judgeships For Votes

Chicago-style politics once again coming home to roost. The Weekly Standard (http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-now-selling-appeals-court-judgeships-health-care-votes) is reporting that Obama is now selling judgeships for health care votes:
Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats (http://twitter.com/chucktodd/status/9938964912) who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he’s obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson’s brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

“Scott Matheson is a distinguished candidate for the Tenth Circuit court,” President Obama said. “Both his legal and academic credentials are impressive and his commitment to judicial integrity is unwavering. I am honored to nominate this lifelong Utahn to the federal bench.”Huh. How convenient. Especially when one takes into account Matheson’s past record on the health care boondoggle:
He voted against the bill (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/07/health_bill_passes_energy_comm.asp) in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he’s “undecided” on ramming the bill through Congress. “The Congressman is looking for development of bipartisan consensus,” Matheson’s press secretary Alyson Heyrend wrote to THE WEEKLY STANDARD on February 22. “It’s too early to know if that will occur.”Perhaps they learned from the bribes of Senators “you don’t even have to get us drunk first” Landrieu and Nelson that outright cash money bribery back-fires a bit (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31100.html) and are trying different tactics for Congressman. Scratch my back and I’ll scratch — your brother’s!

For anyone other than a delusional egomaniac, the fact that you have a super majority yet still cannot pass legislation — because no one wants it — would be enough to tell you, hey, maybe this isn’t a very good idea. Not Obama! Raised up politically in Chicago, he resorts to what he knows; strong arm tactics and outright bribery. This isn’t the first time more than just shades of his Chicago political background have come into play. He pulled the Chicago version of the petulant child saying “La la la, I can’t hear you” when he tried to freeze out Fox News (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/22/its-come-to-this-white-house-tries-to-bar-fox-news-from-interviewing-pay-czar/) and censor the citizenry’s news.

When that failed, much like everything he touches, he moved onto the Chicago-style equivalent of the smarmy, unethical Class President candidate, promising Pizza Fridays for votes. Now, for your brothers too! It has become a pattern, starting with bribery attempts for inconvenient primary challengers to drop their bids (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/19/joe-sestak-the-white-house-offered-me-a-job-in-return-for-dropping-my-challenge-to-specter/trackback/) and has now moved onto vote buying. I’m starting to think that the Pay Czar (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB1244 16737421887739.html&ei=4BCPS_GtAo3mM_OrmccC&usg=AFQjCNGnsbXu8LHOTyMMu7VVKWY4x4yS-Q) is actually a Payola Czar.

They can’t, however, bribe the public with the public’s money. I do believe the 2010 elections might teach them that lesson.
http://rightwingnews.com/#post9154

[Tom]

Washington run on bribery. Call it whatever you want to, but lobbying is bribery. The bottom feeders were elected to represent us, no one else. ANYONE who deals with lobbyists is a thief and a traitor.

[newtothegame]

ObamaCare to “Rip This Nation to Pieces” (http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2010/03/08/obamacare-to-rip-this-nation-to-pieces/)

Posted by Brian Darling (http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/) (Profile (http://www.redstate.com/users/brian_d/))

Monday, March 8th at 9:00PM EST

21 Comments
Congressman Eric Massa (D-NY) gave us a glimpse into the inner workings of the House Democrat Caucus. Massa voted against ObamaCare when it came up in the House last year. He alleged on a New York radio station that he is being forced out of Congress because of his stance on ObamaCare. Aside from the validity of the allegations against him, Massa gives us a glimpse into a fight within the Democrat Caucus on the political viability of the President’s health care reform proposal. Massa shows us that there are some Democrats pleading with Speaker Pelosi (D-Ca) to back away from ObamaCare.


Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) says the House ethics committee is investigating him for inappropriate comments he made to a male staffer on New Year’s Eve — and that he’s the victim of a power play by Democratic leaders who want him out of Congress because he’s a “no” vote on health care reform.

If this is true and Democrat Leaders are forcing Massa out of Congress to help pass ObamaCare, this something that should be investigated by the House Ethics Committee. When did Democrat Leadership know about the allegations against Massa? Was the timing of the disclosure of the allegations part of a plan to help pass ObamaCare? Massa claims that the Democrat Leadership will “stop at nothing” to get what they want. More Politico:

And this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill
More excerpts
"I have had union leaders tell me point blank we are not going to contribute to your campaign unless you vote for this health care bill. Is that or is that not a bribe?"

more at the link.....

http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2010/03/08/obamacare-to-rip-this-nation-to-pieces/

[boxcar]

Have no fear. And the end of the day all this corruption, greed and lust for power will work to the advantage of the "peons and proletariat" alike. America is going to be so much better off because of ObamaCare. :rolleyes:

Boxcar