"Quoting 18 U.S.C. § 599 is your flaw,
for each of us Democrats is far 'above the law'."
Posted on 01/19/2009 3:11:10 PM PST by czs
On Monday, Joe Biden’s wife – in an interview with Oprah Winfrey – divulged an interesting little secret: Obama promised Joe Biden an appointment as Secretary of State if he were to turn down the Vice-Presidential nomination.
Scranton Joe hushed his wife with a loud “shh!” immediately after the slip. (Apparently, only Biden men are allowed to make inappropriate verbal gaffes in nationally televised interviews). It was just so darn cute, though, that the audience erupted into laughter. Jill Biden went on to explain that they turned down the SecState job because it would require a lot of travel, and Jill just can’t stand being away from the big lug. At this point, I am guessing that the crowd let out an “awww” that hasn’t been heard since the Olsen twins first strolled out on the set of Full House (and into our hearts). And so, the nation enjoyed yet another endearing and heartwarming moment during the inspirational build-up to the historic inauguration of Saint President Barack Obama.
At least, that is the saccharine spin from the AP. There is, however, an alternative interpretation of this story – one that does not fit quite as well with the mood of excitement and anticipation at the coming Golden Age: Jill Biden inadvertently revealed a serious federal crime by the President-elect, and her husband quickly tried to shut her up before she divulged more details about the criminal act.
As many of you know, 18 U.S.C. § 599 sets forth the following election crime:
Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
This statute is the reason candidates never reveal their key appointments before the election, despite the obvious benefit of naming potential Cabinet members with large constituencies. It is also fairly well-known to the press – whenever one of the “talking heads” suggests that a candidate declare all or part of their cabinet appointments in order to give assurances on some pressing issue, the law will usually be brought up by another pundit as the reason such a strategy cannot be used. In short, both Obama and the AP knew or should have known that promising the State Department to Biden before the election is highly unethical and potentially criminal.
Now, I don’t think this will derail the Obama Express. The statute has not been tested with respect to a President’s Cabinet (presumably because all previous Presidents have been experienced enough to avoid the rookie mistake of explicitly promising Cabinet appointments). Also, the law’s vagueness allows plenty of weasel-room, and Obama’s staff has plenty of weasels to find that room and squeeze Obama through it. However, if the Obama administration even thinks about prosecuting brave servants of our country (including President Bush) for frightening terrorists with cups of water, then they should have no problem appointing a special prosecutor to investigate whether Obama violated federal law by pledging the State Department to a gaffe-prone blowhard so he could win an election.
WHOA BABY !!!!!!!!!!
Who’s going to get the “Out of Jail for Free” Card first?
Laws rarely apply to democrats.
Well then I say lets organize a mass citizens arrest of Obama, its our Constitutional duty after witnessing a felony.
The Law?
Democrats don’t need no steenking laws!
Oh, yeah, they are not like the old politics of Washington at all — they are much worse, it’s becoming apparent.
Hey, it’s the Chicago-style.
OTOH, Biden had already endorsed Obama so I dont think they’d make a case out of this even if it was blatant.
Another ‘silver lining’ - Biden would be a disaster as SoS even more than Hillary.
Democrats are usually at the leading edge of efforts to break laws and get rid of rules, when doing so will benefit them.
Look on the bright side, if Biden had taken SecState, then Hillary would probably have been given Defense or Justice. No way would Obama, or anyone else, want Hillary in the VP slot, a hearbeat from the Presidency... for obvious "Fosterlike" reasons.
I thought the headline referred to Joe or Beau.
"Quoting 18 U.S.C. § 599 is your flaw,
for each of us Democrats is far 'above the law'."
Well damn.
Short of multiple murders on national television, we’ll never see a president in jail. In the case of corruption, fraud etc, we may see one removed from office and embarrassed but not in jail.
Just ask Sandy Berger. If you get caught red-handed with classified documents in your underwear and socks and can't account for dozens of other documents that were last seen with you AND NOT DO ANY JAIL TIME. Then yes, laws only apply to Republicans and occasionally to locally elected Democrats (see Kwame Kilpatrick et. al.).
Nothing’s going to happen - except Bambi will probably be working even faster to shed Biden (whom he picked only to PO the bishops and because Biden is such a lamebrain he wouldn’t steal Bambi’s faux thunder). I bet Biden will be out of the VP slot by the end of the year. Al Sharpton will probably get it.
If I were Barry, I’d be less worried about ending my term in jail because of those clowns and more so about ending it in the psych ward. Joe in particular...he crazy.
I agree with you about Biden’s “need to step down” from the VP, though I think it won’t come this year. I also agree that whoever is his replacement will very likely be black, though not Sharpton.
You’re right, it probably won’t be Sharpton. It will probably be somebody equally bad, if only a little less notorious.
I’ve thought practically since the beginning that Biden was just a stopgap choice, mainly because Obama wanted a Catholic who was dumb enough to set himself up to oppose the bishops, and because he wanted a VP who was such a nobody he wouldn’t pose any threat. With Biden, of course, he got somebody who is such a nitwit that he has already had to send him out of the country for long periods of time. So I don’t think Biden has a long future as VP ahead of him...
His pick of Joe Biden had nothing to do with bishops.
I don't see how we know that from the evidence thus far, could have been before. Did Jill say when the offer was made?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.