Posted on 05/29/2010 8:51:44 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Rule Number One: When reporting a political story that may involve criminal conduct, read the relevant law first.
Leading media outlets have stated flat-out that there was nothing illegal about White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel asking former president Bill Clinton to offer Rep. Joe Sestak a position on a federal commission if he stayed in the House, rather than challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary. Politics as usual, they say. Everybody does it. A New York Times editorial dismisses the story as “Unintelligent Design,” the Washington Post weighs in with its own assessment that “this is not a scandal. Not a crime. Not even into an ethical gray zone.”
The media consensus is that the White House’s only “crime” was (surprise, surprise) stalling reporters about their questions in the first place. David Gregory fumed about this on Hardball, Chris Matthews concurred, and MSNBC’s Ed Schultz even blamed Sestak for not coming clean sooner. Said WaPo: “The unnecessary coverup, it turns out, is always worse than the non-crime.”
But it’s obvious that none of these folks have read the specific law involved. I, too, was entirely prepared to dismiss Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) allegations of impropriety as politically motivated exaggerations. The guy doesn’t exactly have a great track record, as a litany of bizarro actions proves.
But then I read the law. It’s about electioneering, not federal bribery per se. But it’s a felony, and it still counts:
18 U.S.C. § 600 — Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Specter himself brought this law into play when during the primary Sestak raised the issue of the White House offering him a job. So it can’t all be blamed on the Republicans. Here’s what Specter told Andrea Mitchell in March:
“There is a specific federal statute, which makes it a bribe to make an offer for a public office. When I was district attorney, if somebody came and told me that, I would say, well, name names. Name dates. Name places. That’s a very serious charge. It’s a big black smear without specification. I’m telling you there is a federal crime, punishable by jail. Anybody who wants to say that ought to back it up.”
So there’s the current Democratic (see Republican) senator from Pennsylvania stating on the record that such action is a crime. The White House was on notice then that the media would be looking for smoking guns.
Yet the memo released by the White House counsel on May 28 to defend Emanuel never addresses this specific law, although it is clearly the statute in question. Instead, the counsel’s office raises defenses that are obviously not relevant to the language of the statute, namely that the position offered Sestak was not paid. The electioneering law is very broadly written, prohibiting “any” benefit, paid or unpaid. The counsel’s memo also repeatedly refers to “discussions” between Clinton and Sestak, with the implied defense that a “discussion” is not the same thing as a “promise.” That’s where I think the legal horse is buried, and any investigation would focus. However, the law also says that the promise can be made “directly or indirectly.” This means, to me, that it can be implied as well as overt, and that it can be made through third parties. That means Emanuel would be as guilty as Clinton for the violation.
Here we go again. Are we back to what the definition of “is” is? Thursday’s photo op with President Obama and former President Clinton was not exactly reassuring. One of the reasons I voted for President Obama is that I wanted the nation to be free of the cloud of impropriety that follows the Clintons like Charlie’s Brown’s friend Pigpen. So when Obama filled his administration with former Clintonistas like Rahm Emanuel, I held my nose.
If Emanuel has any integrity himself, he will resign as soon as possible and make any legal defense, if he has one, as a private citizen. Known for his combative ways, Emanuel should have no qualms about falling on his own sword. The nation is facing an unprecedented combination of crises: the Wall Street meltdown, the Great Recession, and the worst oil pollution in human history that may well destroy the Gulf Coast. President Obama needs to be focused on the needs of the nation, not mired in the scandals of his staff. This is no time for another Scooter Libby/Valerie Plame affair.
As for President Obama, I think his worst offense was hiring Emanuel in the first place. Joe Conason said it best in Salon: “Obama should take the Sestak maneuver as an early warning against placing too much trust in his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, whose arrogance will surely cross a line someday if it has not already.”
18 U.S.C. § 600 — Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.You do have to interpret a decision by Sestak not to run for Senate as a political activity or "opposition to any candidate" - namely Sestak himself - but otherwise the statute is pretty clear. And encompassing.
If only the Attorney General knew about this . . .
>>Then he’ll start throwing citizens under the bus.<<
He’s been doing that since Day One! What happens when he runs out of citizens to throw under the bus? Probably move to China.
Conspired one might say.
“But it’s a felony, and it still counts”
It only counts if it was done by a conservative.
Hypocritical liars! The job of the press is to report the truth without bias. Treat the story the same regardless of party (I know; fantasy). FoxNews and other 'fair and balanced' media should make a story of the excuse-making liberal media over this Sestak coverup. I have a two-word reply to this incredible line from the Wa(com)Po(st) ....
Scooter Libby
But then I read the law. It’s about electioneering, not federal bribery per se. But it’s a felony, and it still counts: 18 U.S.C. § 600 — Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity.
Okay, not to nitpick BUT I wish all the reporters would be more specific as looking for "18 U.S.C. § 600" in the US Code will give you heartburn.
Why - because that's not the correct, full, citation of the pertinent section of the US Code, its incomplete. I was going nuts searching my copy of the US Code yesterday. The FULL citation is:
Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 29, Section 600:Everyone is leaving OUT the Part 1, Chapter 29 part. And you kinda NEED THAT if you actually have the full US CODE on file to search from.
Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity.
And a further nitpick. That section of the US Code has been AMENDED quite a few times. And again, everyone is looking at the ORIGINAL LAW. Not the amendments. And those changes are a full page on the FindLaw website. I'm NOT saying the Changes to the Original Law don't make it a crime, I don't have the time to play Lawyer again or now, I have to work soon and 'play Engineer'(1).
I'm just saying, come on everyone (MSM) let's get specific people.
(1) Mechanical not Train
Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or 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. Whoever solicits or receives any thing of value in consideration of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States either by referring his name to an executive department or agency of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section shall not apply to such services rendered by an employment agency pursuant to the written request of an executive department or agency of the United States.
Anyone know why the above would not apply instead?
two more words: Rod Blagojevich
The 'new age in America in which a crime is not defined by statute but by pundits' is even worse ...
It is relativism for me (Donks), but not for thee (EVERYONE else)!
I see you have a lot of correct answer by now but to expand a bit, it can be Juris Doctor or Doctor of Jurisprudence. It used to be LL.B. which stands for Legum Baccalarureus or Bachelor of Laws, but lawyers wanted a jazzier degree so it got converted. Some say to earn Doctorate salary when teaching in universities.
Leave Larry Sinclair out of this!
Cheers!
...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
It means it is not a felony. A felony is punishable by more than one year in prison.
Actually no, you don't, since there is only one Section 600 in the title. Chapter 29 consists of current and repealed sections 591 to 617, which occur nowhere else in the title. You don't need a page number in order to look someone up in the phone book.
Citations of US Code always have only the title and section. See, for example, the US Supreme Court opinion in Hardt v. Reliance Standard, right there on the first page:
Hardt then filed a motion under 29 U. S. C. §1132(g)(1), a fee-shifting statute ...
And the Cornell Legal Information Institute has a US Code title/section search tool available for public use.
It's a cock-and-bull story, pure and simple.THE WH BOTCHED THE COVERUP! GET IT GUYS?
- First of all, Sestak obviously had ambitions for a run at a senate seat before he even made his first run for the House of Representatives - let alone before Snarlin' Arlen became a Democratic incumbent. So it's naive in the extreme to think that no quid pro quo would be discussed if the administration tried to prevent a primary challenge to Specter - as all understand that Obama promised Specter he would do (which, BTW, makes Specter's complaints about the discussion of such quid pro quo utterly hypocritical).
- Secondly, it was naive of Sestak to assume that he was at liberty to publicly discuss such an offer of a quid pro quo on the assumption that it couldn't be illegal or the president wouldn't do it.
- Third (as Rush immediately pointed out), the relations between Obama and Clinton haven't been so great that it would be natural for Obama to use Clinton as an intermediary with Sestak. The injection of Clinton into the story is a red herring concocted long after the fact. Clinton enters the story because they needed someone with his exact qualifications to diffuse the situation. Namely, Mr. Clinton is famously "an unusually good liar. Unusually good."
Mr. Clinton is acting as a fixer - and one is left to wonder exactly what he is getting out of the deal. Why does the image of Reverend Jesse Jackson counseling Clinton at the height of Monicagate come to mind?
The President of the U.S. appoints the Board members anyway, So Clinton getting involve makes little sense! and BTW even if this is supposedly done all the time on the edge of legality ..Nobody offers UNPAID JOBS TO CONGRESSMEN FOR THEIR VOTE OR POLITICAL ACTIONS!!!!
THIS IS NIXONIAN ALL OVER!
Given the entire history, I don't accept that it's necessary to bring Nixon's name in as a negative label. If the Clinton impeachment/acquittal precedent had existed before Watergate, no way does Nixon resign, or have to. His resignation showed far more integrity than Clinton ever did.
To borrow a phrase, "what did he know and when did he know it?" Nixon never ordered the Watergate break-in dispite what pop culture leads us to believe. It was his actions after its discovery that lead to his downfall. Where is the Dem John Dean?
Has anybody checked Sestak's suits for stains?
There’s danger in throwing Rahm under the bus...imagine if he starts singing to save his own hide. I’m sure he has an interesting tale or two to tell.
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.