A Felon in the White House?

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

GM, I'm curious. Do you think a crime was committed? I'm only asking because of the title of the thread.

The articles I've read point to a violation of 18 USC 211 as a felony. I don't doubt for one second the Chicago-style politics sitting in 1600 PA Ave offered such a thing to Sestak. So, yeah. I guess I do think a crime was committed.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by GMScud

The articles I've read point to a violation of 18 USC 211 as a felony. I don't doubt for one second the Chicago-style politics sitting in 1600 PA Ave offered such a thing to Sestak. So, yeah. I guess I do think a crime was committed.

I'm not sure what Chicago style politics mean, but IF a crime was committed ---and I've heard Rep. Darrell (R) Issa throw this same violation around-- I would have to think that at least a specific offer for a paid position had to be offered.

At issue, is whether the White House broke federal law that prohibits exerting the promise of influence for obtaining a federal job, interfering in elections of promising employment for political activity. (I pulled this from a source)

Sestak was offered a non-compensated position, not a federal paying job. He had a thirty second conversation with Bill Clinton about a position on a "presidential board". Nothing specific was offered or declined, per Sestak. This is a bunch of political hay that's going nowhere except for the Sunday talk shows.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I'm not sure what Chicago style politics mean, but IF a crime was committed ---and I've heard Rep. Darrell (R) Issa throw this same violation around-- I would have to think that at least a specific offer for a paid position had to be offered.

At issue, is whether the White House broke federal law that prohibits exerting the promise of influence for obtaining a federal job, interfering in elections of promising employment for political activity. (I pulled this from a source)

Sestak was offered a non-compensated position, not a federal paying job. He had a thirty second conversation with Bill Clinton about a position on a "presidential board". Nothing specific was offered or declined, per Sestak. This is a bunch of political hay that's going nowhere except for the Sunday talk shows.

I too am curios what that means...Is it anything like Tampico style politics?

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I'm not sure what Chicago style politics mean, but IF a crime was committed ---and I've heard Rep. Darrell (R) Issa throw this same violation around-- I would have to think that at least a specific offer for a paid position had to be offered.

At issue, is whether the White House broke federal law that prohibits exerting the promise of influence for obtaining a federal job, interfering in elections of promising employment for political activity. (I pulled this from a source)

Sestak was offered a non-compensated position, not a federal paying job. He had a thirty second conversation with Bill Clinton about a position on a "presidential board". Nothing specific was offered or declined, per Sestak. This is a bunch of political hay that's going nowhere except for the Sunday talk shows.

I guess you could also call it arm-twisting politics...

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I guess you could also call it arm-twisting politics...

My new boss the other day enticed me to stay on with my company by offering me a promotion. I asked him if it come with a pay raise and he replied "Probably. I'll have to check and see if your current pay overlaps the new pay-grade." Is what he is doing a form of arm twisting? Unethical?

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by saden1

My new boss the other day enticed me to stay on with my company by offering me a promotion. I asked him if it come with a pay raise and he replied "Probably. I'll have to check and see if your current pay overlaps the new pay-grade." Is what he is doing a form of arm twisting? Unethical?

I see you still have not made it to post #2.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

My new boss the other day enticed me to stay on with my company by offering me a promotion. I asked him if it come with a pay raise and he replied "Probably. I'll have to check and see if your current pay overlaps the new pay-grade." Is what he is doing a form of arm twisting? Unethical?

Come on Saden thats not even a very good example.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Come on Saden thats not even a very good example.

Why?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Why?

Because we know your boss would not offer you a raise. LOL

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by saden1

Why?

Because your boss isn't trying to thwart/circumvent a country's election process of public officials.

To me the whole meat of the matter is the fact the WH must have thought that Sestak had a good shot at winning the majority of the people's vote. They wanted their guy (Specter) to be the voice of the people instead. So, they tell Sestak not to run because we think you may win which means the majority of voters in your district wanted you to win, not the other guy. Does this happen all of the time? Without a doubt. Is it wrong? Without a doubt.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I'm not sure what Chicago style politics mean, but IF a crime was committed ---and I've heard Rep. Darrell (R) Issa throw this same violation around-- I would have to think that at least a specific offer for a paid position had to be offered.

At issue, is whether the White House broke federal law that prohibits exerting the promise of influence for obtaining a federal job, interfering in elections of promising employment for political activity. (I pulled this from a source)

Sestak was offered a non-compensated position, not a federal paying job. He had a thirty second conversation with Bill Clinton about a position on a "presidential board". Nothing specific was offered or declined, per Sestak. This is a bunch of political hay that's going nowhere except for the Sunday talk shows.

I wouldn't go that far. Gibbs is getting peppered with questions about it daily. Most likely it's not as serious as some are saying, but I don't think it's the "nothing to see here, move along" afterthought that the White House claims it to be.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I wouldn't go that far. Gibbs is getting peppered with questions about it daily. Most likely it's not as serious as some are saying, but I don't think it's the "nothing to see here, move along" afterthought that the White House claims it to be.

Gibbs is referring to the memo because he/they want to stay on message and not give the media a sound bite and keep this thing going for another week. Why create a story when there isn't one? When the president was asked during the his oil spill presser about the "deal", he essentially dodged the question. Smart move. I think Joe Sestak is the best person to answer all the questions and he's doing that.

The mistake that was made, if any, was involving Bill Clinton. He's just an easy target. But from what I understand Bill Clinton and Joe Sestak have been close friends for years, so it makes sense that he was the messenger.

As far as arm twisting goes, I would say it's organizing your political party to maintain power and advance your agenda. Each party has that right to do that and should position themselves to be as powerful and effective as possible to serve their interests and the people they must answer to. As long as everything is done above board, let's play chess. There's nothing unethical, unusual, or as far as I can see, any impropriety occurred. The irony in all of this is that Sestak is probably more in line with Obama's views than Arlen Specter ever was, so it's still a win for the White House.

Anyway, 'nuff of that.