Why am I not shocked?

[Elvado]

that something untoward happened with regard to Joe Sestak and Bill Clinton is right in the middle of it. Will he take an oath in federal court and ask us to take his word that everything was proper?

"I did not offer a job/bribe to that man, Congressman Sestak" (Finger wagging for dramastic effect).

[The Stig]

Could we maybe have a dedicated "Snarky Elvado Remarks" thread? This is reaching hifi/Florida territory now.

[Boz]

Except that Sestak is something that everyone (at least everyone with a strong interest in politics) is talking about and probably more will be soon, whenever we see the White House response.

Elvado may start off threads on a snarky note, but they're relevant threads.

Now, if he starts initiating threads about how his friends at the Home Depot agree with him that pot should be legal and Urban Meyer has never done anything wrong in his life, well then, I'll definitely join you, Stig.

[Elvado]

Is anyone else a little troubled by the early White House stonewall, followed by a private lunch between Clinton and Obama, followed by this tale?

Someone is going to have to go under oath on this one. Sestak claimed he was offered a job by someone inside the White House. Last I checked, Mr. Clinton was not inside the White House. I'd like the pay-per-view rights to Bill Clinton under oath.

Tough spot for Democrats: I see three realistic explanations, two of which are really bad for Sestak:

1. Sestak lied;

2. Job was actually offered and law violated;

3. Sestak misunderstood the subtle pressure to get out of the race.

1 and 2 are disasters for Democrats though they will gladly throw Sestak under the bus to save Obama's hide. 3 reveals that Sestak is a dope who speaks out of turn.

[strummer8526]

Does anyone really think that this is unique behavior? It's somewhat dirty, sure, in the way that all politics are dirty. But "We'd rather you not run for X, and if you don't, we can set you up with Y" barely seems like news to me.

[Elvado]

May 28, 2010 11:19:57 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Does anyone really think that this is unique behavior? It's somewhat dirty, sure, in the way that all politics are dirty. But "We'd rather you not run for X, and if you don't, we can set you up with Y" barely seems like news to me.

Save for any quid pro quo being a felony it's all good. Sestak claims he was "offered a job" to get out. If that happened, a felony was committed. If he made it up, he's a liar. If he misunderstood, he's a dope.

This story broke in February 2010 and we await the White House's "version". What do they know now that they did not know in February?

[Boz]

Official White House release:

assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/Sestak%20Memorandum.pdf

"Say, instead of running for Senate and giving us a divisive primary, how would you be interested in this unpaid advisory job?"

Hmmm. That doesn't really pass the smell test.

Also, just because President Obama had announced someone he was planning on appointing Secretary of the Navy, that really doesn't mean that the job couldn't have been offered to Sestak.

[TC]

May 28, 2010 11:19:57 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Does anyone really think that this is unique behavior? It's somewhat dirty, sure, in the way that all politics are dirty. But "We'd rather you not run for X, and if you don't, we can set you up with Y" barely seems like news to me.

This.

If you don't think Charlie Crist is being offered a bunch of jobs by the Republicans right now, you're nuts.

I honestly think Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot pursuing this because they've effectively made Sestak look independent and not at all beholden to Obama.

[Boz]

I can pretty much guarantee that Charlie Crist is not being offered a bunch of jobs by Republicans right now.

Whether or not Charlie Crist had been offered anything PRIOR to his announcement of an independent run, well we'll most likely never know.

I can't remember who said it, but someone I read captured the Sestak thing pretty well, saying "the stench is awful, but there's no corpse."

[strummer8526]

May 28, 2010 11:28:18 GMT -5 Elvado said:

May 28, 2010 11:19:57 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Does anyone really think that this is unique behavior? It's somewhat dirty, sure, in the way that all politics are dirty. But "We'd rather you not run for X, and if you don't, we can set you up with Y" barely seems like news to me.

Save for any quid pro quo being a felony it's all good. Sestak claims he was "offered a job" to get out. If that happened, a felony was committed. If he made it up, he's a liar. If he misunderstood, he's a dope.

This story broke in February 2010 and we await the White House's "version". What do they know now that they did not know in February?

Have you ever looked at the criminal code? Just for fun, take a peak at "honest services fraud."* We're all felons if some enterprising your AUSA wants to call us one. (*This specific example is currently being challenged by Jeff Skilling and several other parties before the Supreme Court. I'm hoping it doesn't survive, but even if it is struck down as ludicrously vague, there are still a million other ways I could call you a "felon" and make it stick.)

[Elvado]

Good point. Now take off your DNC underoos and answer whether you believe the White House account.

[Filo]

Wait, law student challenging practicing lawyer. This isn't the Friday Fun Thread is it? ;D

Happy Memorial Day Weekend, all!

[rosslynhoya]

May 28, 2010 13:34:29 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

May 28, 2010 11:28:18 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Save for any quid pro quo being a felony it's all good. Sestak claims he was "offered a job" to get out. If that happened, a felony was committed. If he made it up, he's a liar. If he misunderstood, he's a dope.

This story broke in February 2010 and we await the White House's "version". What do they know now that they did not know in February?

Have you ever looked at the criminal code? Just for fun, take a peak at "honest services fraud."* We're all felons if some enterprising your AUSA wants to call us one. (*This specific example is currently being challenged by Jeff Skilling and several other parties before the Supreme Court. I'm hoping it doesn't survive, but even if it is struck down as ludicrously vague, there are still a million other ways I could call you a "felon" and make it stick.)

18 USC Section 600 has nothing to do with honest services fraud.

[TBird41]

May 28, 2010 15:29:15 GMT -5 rosslynhoya said:

May 28, 2010 13:34:29 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Have you ever looked at the criminal code? Just for fun, take a peak at "honest services fraud."* We're all felons if some enterprising your AUSA wants to call us one. (*This specific example is currently being challenged by Jeff Skilling and several other parties before the Supreme Court. I'm hoping it doesn't survive, but even if it is struck down as ludicrously vague, there are still a million other ways I could call you a "felon" and make it stick.)

18 USC Section 600 has nothing to do with honest services fraud.

Why do I feel like there's a thread on the 37th & O board that might be relevant here?

[RusskyHoya]

I will throw in the obvious technicality: offering someone an Executive Branch job necessarily means that they would have to renounce any Legislative Branch job, since you cannot hold both at the same time. Thus, there is not much difference between "don't run for senator and we'll make you Secretary of the Navy" and "we want to make you Secretary of the Navy." You cannot be Secretary of the Navy and be a Senator. Offering someone an Executive Branch job implicitly includes asking them to renounce all contradictory statuses, including service as a member of the Legislative Branch.

Yes, this is a technicality. And yes, such job offers are made all the time by administrations of both partisan stripes. And yes, Sestak would not have been eligible to be SecNav until May 2010. Such is the nature of Washington.

[Bando]

Where is there a quid pro quo? Because of the Hatch Act, if Sestak were giving up his primary challenge for an administration job, he'd have to give up his House seat. That is, he wouldn't be receiving something, he'd be giving up one thing for another. Furthermore, can anyone actually point to the law something like this would break? Everyone seems to be shouting "illegal" without any real factual support.

I guess Toomey's really desperate now his perfect foil is out of the race.

[kchoya]

May 28, 2010 13:34:29 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

May 28, 2010 11:28:18 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Save for any quid pro quo being a felony it's all good. Sestak claims he was "offered a job" to get out. If that happened, a felony was committed. If he made it up, he's a liar. If he misunderstood, he's a dope.

This story broke in February 2010 and we await the White House's "version". What do they know now that they did not know in February?

Have you ever looked at the criminal code? Just for fun, take a peak at "honest services fraud."* We're all felons if some enterprising your AUSA wants to call us one. (*This specific example is currently being challenged by Jeff Skilling and several other parties before the Supreme Court. I'm hoping it doesn't survive, but even if it is struck down as ludicrously vague, there are still a million other ways I could call you a "felon" and make it stick.)

And the jobs of AUSA's all across the country just got a little bit harder:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/24/AR2010062402720.html?hpid=topnews