Why no law was broken in the Sestak job offer...

Wow. What a spin. And that's assuming we even know the true story here.
So now Obama is showing the worst tendencies of Jimmy "I asked my daughter about it" Carter and Bill "It depends on the meaning of 'is'" Clinton.

In fact the board is authorized by Congress every year in the budget.

Not ot mention, "I can't remember signing the order to sell guns to the Contra." Reagon
 
Yeah. What is Joe Sestak's version of what took place? No one knows because he isn't talking.
So we have to take Clinton's word for it as to what was offered and when. And the man is a convicted liar in a court of law. And we have to take the White House's word for it that nothing improper happened. And they ahve a bad reputation for truth telling. Roland Burris anyone?

Survey says: "BUUUUUZZZZZZZZ"

Sestak's statement from today:

Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton. During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background. He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives. I said no. I told President Clinton that my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any offer. The former President said he knew I'd say that, and the conversation moved on to other subjects.

There are many important challenges facing Pennsylvania and the rest of the country. I intend to remain focused on those issues and continue my fight on behalf of working families.

The Intelligence Advisory Committee is in fact a "Presidential Board".

And, in addition, for the icing on the cake, Sestak did not even imply a "quid-pro-quo" in this statement.

Bzzz. Time out.
Saying "a presidential board" is not the same as "The Intelligence Advisory Committee." One is specific the other isn't.
There was clearly a quid pro quo implied here, even if Sestak, who is a left wing Democrat btw, did not make it explicit. Clearly Clinton was encouraging him not to run and dangled a presidential appointment in front of him.
 

Thank you.

And that includes immediate members of their cabinet, as per section 9. Like Rahm Emanuel.
Hmmm, I don't think so. The Act explicitely states that only two civilian employees are not covered. The cabinet's budget is approved and appropriated every year by Congress and the act applies to all civilian employees in the Executive Branch whose positions directly or indirectly are made possible by Congress.
 
The reason for the Hatch act provision in the first place was to make sure that incumbent representatives couldn't use intermediaries to stop challengers from replacing them.

The reason why the President is exempted is so the President is not constricted in doing what he feels is best for the country. I believe there was a mention of "Foreign Interests" during the act's inception.

Obviously this is not a case of "Foreign Interests", but as a matter of law, the President is still exempt.
 
The reason for the Hatch act provision in the first place was to make sure that incumbent representatives couldn't use intermediaries to stop challengers from replacing them.

The reason why the President is exempted is so the President is not constricted in doing what he feels is best for the country. I believe there was a mention of "Foreign Interests" during the act's inception.

Obviously this is not a case of "Foreign Interests", but as a matter of law, the President is still exempt.
You are correct. Two persons are exempt - the POTUS and the Vice President.
 

Thank you.

And that includes immediate members of their cabinet, as per section 9. Like Rahm Emanuel.
Hmmm, I don't think so. The Act explicitely states that only two civilian employees are not covered. The cabinet's budget is approved and appropriated every year by Congress and the act applies to all civilian employees in the Executive Branch whose positions directly or indirectly are made possible by Congress.

Here's the actual line:

For the purposes of this section the term "officer" or "employee" shall not be construe to include (1) the President and the Vice Presdent of the United States; (2) persons whose compensation is paid from the appropriation for the office of the President;

Which would include the cabinet.

Even if it didn't , Rahm would be exempted if he were acting on orders from the President. Like with "Presidential Privilege".
 
Wow. What a spin. And that's assuming we even know the true story here.
So now Obama is showing the worst tendencies of Jimmy "I asked my daughter about it" Carter and Bill "It depends on the meaning of 'is'" Clinton.

In fact the board is authorized by Congress every year in the budget.

Not ot mention, "I can't remember signing the order to sell guns to the Contra." Reagon

That was 30 years ago.
Thanks for the most irrelevant post this week. A new low!
 
By the way, this is my personal interpretation of the law, having read it.

I did not get this from any media source at all, except for the quotes from the people involved.

The quotes concerning the law itself are straight from the Hatch Act.
 
Thank you.

And that includes immediate members of their cabinet, as per section 9. Like Rahm Emanuel.
Hmmm, I don't think so. The Act explicitely states that only two civilian employees are not covered. The cabinet's budget is approved and appropriated every year by Congress and the act applies to all civilian employees in the Executive Branch whose positions directly or indirectly are made possible by Congress.

Here's the actual line:

For the purposes of this section the term "officer" or "employee" shall not be construe to include (1) the President and the Vice Presdent of the United States; (2) persons whose compensation is paid from the appropriation for the office of the President;

Which would include the cabinet.

Even if it didn't , Rahm would be exempted if he were acting on orders from the President. Like with "Presidential Privilege".
No. I know you want Emmanuel to be exempt, but only two civilian employees of the Executive Branch are exempt - the POTUS and the Vice President - and that is explicitely stated in the Act. Other than those two persons, civilian employess of the Executive Branch fall in one of two categories - further restricted and less restricted - both covered by the provisions of the Hatch Act to different degrees.
 
Right wingers should learn to read the actual laws you are referring to before making crazy accusations. Yes I'm talking to you Rep. Darrell Issa:

Hatch Act

SEC. 3. It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to promise any employment, position, work, compensation, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, to give consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in any election.

Since the position offered, which was an advisory position on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, was not in fact "made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress" (the IAB was created by presidential executive order during the Ford administration), no law has been broken.

In addition, section 9, which would be the other applicable section, contains an exception for the President himself and his cabinet. To wit:

SEC. 9. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person employed in the executive branch of the Federal Government, or any agency or department thereof, to use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering ;with an election or affecting the result thereof. No officer or employee in the executive branch of the Federal Government, or any agency or department thereof, shall take any active part in political management or in political campaigns. All such persons shall retain the right to vote as they may choose and to express their opinions on all political subjects. For the purposes of this section the term "officer" or "employee" shall not be construe to include (1) the President and the Vice Presdent of the United States; (2) persons whose compensation is paid from the appropriation for the office of the President;

Looks like the right-wingers have been led on yet another wild goose chase.

Should have title the thread " Why there are no bounds to which i'll spin to defend my party....."
 
Intent is not defined as where VastLWC has circle-jerks with Cub Scouts.

It is obvious to anyone with more than three brain cells that is was the intent of this administration to skirt the law without actually breaking it.
That is exactly why the offer was made by proxy.

Don't try to insult people's intelligence with linguistic acrobats.
 
Right wingers should learn to read the actual laws you are referring to before making crazy accusations. Yes I'm talking to you Rep. Darrell Issa:

Hatch Act

SEC. 3. It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to promise any employment, position, work, compensation, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, to give consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in any election.

Since the position offered, which was an advisory position on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, was not in fact "made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress" (the IAB was created by presidential executive order during the Ford administration), no law has been broken.

In addition, section 9, which would be the other applicable section, contains an exception for the President himself and his cabinet. To wit:

SEC. 9. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person employed in the executive branch of the Federal Government, or any agency or department thereof, to use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering ;with an election or affecting the result thereof. No officer or employee in the executive branch of the Federal Government, or any agency or department thereof, shall take any active part in political management or in political campaigns. All such persons shall retain the right to vote as they may choose and to express their opinions on all political subjects. For the purposes of this section the term "officer" or "employee" shall not be construe to include (1) the President and the Vice Presdent of the United States; (2) persons whose compensation is paid from the appropriation for the office of the President;

Looks like the right-wingers have been led on yet another wild goose chase.

Should have title the thread " Why there are no bounds to which i'll spin to defend my party....."

So, please show me where I am stretching the truth.

Because if I am not, then what you call "spin" would otherwise be known as "fact".
 
Intent is not defined as where VastLWC has circle-jerks with Cub Scouts.

It is obvious to anyone with more than three brain cells that is was the intent of this administration to skirt the law without actually breaking it.
That is exactly why the offer was made by proxy.

Don't try to insult people's intelligence with linguistic acrobats.

And in this case, they did in fact skirt the law without breaking it.

Which, last time I checked was not a crime.

Thus there is no standing to begin an "investigation", and there is no LEGAL "scandal". Which was my point.

If right-wingers still want to pursue this for some insane reason, it will only come out looking like an unsubstantiated witch-hunt during a period where there are at least 4 major crises occurring.

Good luck selling that politically.
 
Right wingers should learn to read the actual laws you are referring to before making crazy accusations. Yes I'm talking to you Rep. Darrell Issa:

Hatch Act



Since the position offered, which was an advisory position on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, was not in fact "made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress" (the IAB was created by presidential executive order during the Ford administration), no law has been broken.

In addition, section 9, which would be the other applicable section, contains an exception for the President himself and his cabinet. To wit:



Looks like the right-wingers have been led on yet another wild goose chase.

Should have title the thread " Why there are no bounds to which i'll spin to defend my party....."

So, please show me where I am stretching the truth.

Because if I am not, then what you call "spin" would otherwise be known as "fact".

Did Obama or Biden directly offer the job ? ...... :eusa_whistle:
Besides, anyway you look at this it stinks, but keep enabling these low life fucks ......
 
No. I know you want Emmanuel to be exempt, but only two civilian employees of the Executive Branch are exempt - the POTUS and the Vice President - and that is explicitely stated in the Act. Other than those two persons, civilian employess of the Executive Branch fall in one of two categories - further restricted and less restricted - both covered by the provisions of the Hatch Act to different degrees.

However, even if what you said was true:

If Emanuel were acting in his official capacity as a representative of the President, then the presidential immunity would extend to him.

Look it up man, the NSA folks successfully used this to guarantee immunity from accusations of warrant-less wiretapping.
 
Vast, you're doing a bang up job pointing out why this wasn't illegal, but I can't help but notice how you deliberately side-step the rotten-factor.
Can you take off your Obama-Defender hat for a moment and admit that what they did stinks worse than shit.
 
Vast, you're doing a bang up job pointing out why this wasn't illegal, but I can't help but notice how you deliberately side-step the rotten-factor.
Can you take off your Obama-Defender hat for a moment and admit that what they did stinks worse than shit.

It does, but this sort of thing happens all the time in politics. I'm sure if you look closely enough, you'll see examples of just this sort of thing throughout history.

I don't like it, but it's a fact of life.

Personally, I don't in fact like this at all, to tell you the truth, necessary evil or not.

In the grand scheme of things, however, is this really that big a deal?

I'm willing to bet most of the American populace will care less once they realize no law has been broken.
 
Poor Issa. He started the movement to get Governor Gray Davis out of office. When Arnold decided to run Issa wept on TV because his intent was to become governor himself.
 

Forum List

Back
Top