Mark Levin Highlights Obama's Pending Trouble Regarding Joe Sestak

[The T]

Like him or hate him...Mark Levin on his Friday [May 28, 2010 ] program laid out what faces Obama legally regarding the Joe Sestak affair.

Mark laid out this law: 18 USC Section 600:

"
Sec. 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."

______________________________
Mark laid it out clearly and gave the reasons why. Click on the below link to hear how this is laid out by Mark.Politics as usual out of D.C. Mr. President? You claimed you're in control. Are you really?I think either you've lost control, or [as you've shown over the past weeks with the Oil Spill]that you have LOST control unto those Statists you've suoounded yourself with.To hear Mark's comments? Click on the link below...From the beginning of the programto about 17 minutes in. Mark lays it out.

AUDIO

And Mark being a Lawyer with his Landmark Legal Foundation? I am more apt to belive his assesment than the crap answer we've gotten out of the Whitehouse on Friday.Read More Here...

 

[Sarah G]

Who?

 

[The T]

Didn't listen or READ eh Sarah. This is a serious matter regarding a LAW that's been broken by this administration.

Go back to sleep.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I didn't know what the issue was. It struck me as a pretty lame scandal.

I don't think this quite qualifies under the law.

I am just glad Sestak said now. I am glad to see the last of Specktor.

 

[The T]

I didn't know what the issue was. It struck me as a pretty lame scandal.

I don't think this quite qualifies under the law.

I am just glad Sestak said now. I am glad to see the last of Specktor.

This is very serious for Obama's Administration...it's all laid out.

And yeah I'm relived that Arlen Specter is GONE. This is deep and cannot be dismissed regardless of the isdea "It goes on all the time". It has to Stop...here and NOW.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

He is to big to fail.

 

[The T]

He is to big to fail.

'Or so the Germans would have you belive'~ Norm MacDonald [SNL News Anchor]

Those that voted for him would like to think this. Nevermind he LIED saying Business as usual was over in the District Of Criminals.

He's made it larger. This isn't popularity, this is Law.

 

[Polk]

I didn't know what the issue was. It struck me as a pretty lame scandal.

I don't think this quite qualifies under the law.

I am just glad Sestak said now. I am glad to see the last of Specktor.

It doesn't qualify. Since Sestak could not have ran for a Senate seat while also serving in an appointed office, there is no possible way the acceptance of the position serves as a bribe.

Don't take my word for it, Bush's ethics counsel said the same thing on a legal ethics blog he contributes to:

The allegation that the job offer was somehow a “bribe” in return for Sestak not running in the primary is difficult to support. Sestak, if he had taken a job in the Administration, would not have been permitted to run in the Pennsylvania primary. The Hatch Act prohibits a federal employee from being a candidate for nomination or election to a partisan political office. 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(3). He had to choose one or the other, but he could not choose both.

The job offer may have been a way of getting Sestak out of Specter’s way, but this also is nothing new. Many candidates for top Administration appointments are politically active in the President’s political party. Many are candidates or are considering candidacy in primaries. White House political operatives don’t like contentious fights in their own party primaries and sometimes suggest jobs in the Administration for persons who otherwise would be contenders. For the White House, this is usually a “win-win” situation, giving the Administration politically savvy appointees in the Executive Branch and fewer contentious primaries for the Legislative Branch. This may not be best for voters who have less choice as a result, and Sestak thus should be commended for saying “no”. The job offer, however, is hardly a “bribe” when it is one of two alternatives that are mutually exclusive.

Though I think Jonathan Chait over at The New Republic put it best:

You don't have to rely on the "the word of White House officials." There's no such thing as offering somebody a job in return for them dropping out of a Senate race. The acceptance of a job means dropping out of a Senate race. The concept of offering somebody a job "in exchange" for them declining to seek another job is like offering to marry a woman in exchange for her not marrying some other guy. It's conceptually nonsensical. The Plame allegation was a story because there was a credible charge of law-breaking. There is no such credible charge here.

 

[The T]

I didn't know what the issue was. It struck me as a pretty lame scandal.

I don't think this quite qualifies under the law.

I am just glad Sestak said now. I am glad to see the last of Specktor.

It doesn't qualify. Since Sestak could not have ran for a Senate seat while also serving in an appointed office, there is no possible way the acceptance of the position serves as a bribe.

Don't take my word for it, Bush's ethics counsel said the same thing on a legal ethics blog he contributes to:

The allegation that the job offer was somehow a “bribe” in return for Sestak not running in the primary is difficult to support. Sestak, if he had taken a job in the Administration, would not have been permitted to run in the Pennsylvania primary. The Hatch Act prohibits a federal employee from being a candidate for nomination or election to a partisan political office. 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(3). He had to choose one or the other, but he could not choose both.

The job offer may have been a way of getting Sestak out of Specter’s way, but this also is nothing new. Many candidates for top Administration appointments are politically active in the President’s political party. Many are candidates or are considering candidacy in primaries. White House political operatives don’t like contentious fights in their own party primaries and sometimes suggest jobs in the Administration for persons who otherwise would be contenders. For the White House, this is usually a “win-win” situation, giving the Administration politically savvy appointees in the Executive Branch and fewer contentious primaries for the Legislative Branch. This may not be best for voters who have less choice as a result, and Sestak thus should be commended for saying “no”. The job offer, however, is hardly a “bribe” when it is one of two alternatives that are mutually exclusive.

Though I think Jonathan Chait over at The New Republic put it best:

You don't have to rely on the "the word of White House officials." There's no such thing as offering somebody a job in return for them dropping out of a Senate race. The acceptance of a job means dropping out of a Senate race. The concept of offering somebody a job "in exchange" for them declining to seek another job is like offering to marry a woman in exchange for her not marrying some other guy. It's conceptually nonsensical. The Plame allegation was a story because there was a credible charge of law-breaking. There is no such credible charge here.

18 USC Section 600 applies. none of the rest of this matters PolkStain.

 

[Polk]

You can keep claiming it, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[The T]

You can keep claiming it, but that doesn't make it true.

No the LAW is what it is...and it is TRUE.

Sorry. You are just lame in your response...and ignorant to boot.

 

[Rocky Top Lady]

"The Great One".....

I miss his show most of the time, but when I catch it I always enjoy his "take no prisoners" approach to whatever his current subject is....

Sadly, though, it appears that this, too, is going to slide right off the Teflon Don.....he seems to be the "take all the credit and accept none of the blame guy". What I find striking is that 42 and 44 grabbed a quick bite together the day before the big announcement.....

 

[The T]

"The Great One".....

I miss his show most of the time, but when I catch it I always enjoy his "take no prisoners" approach to whatever his current subject is....

Sadly, though, it appears that this, too, is going to slide right off the Teflon Don.....he seems to be the "take all the credit and accept none of the blame guy". What I find striking is that 42 and 44 grabbed a quick bite together the day before the big announcement.....

And it is on within the prevue of the American people to demand an answer from Obama and this administration...and more to the point? WHOM empowered Bill Clinton to make such an advance?

 

[Polk]

You can keep claiming it, but that doesn't make it true.

No the LAW is what it is...and it is TRUE.

Sorry. You are just lame in your response...and ignorant to boot.

You should read what the law says, and not what you wished it said.

 

[The T]

You can keep claiming it, but that doesn't make it true.

No the LAW is what it is...and it is TRUE.

Sorry. You are just lame in your response...and ignorant to boot.

You should read what the law says, and not what you wished it said.

I did...and Heard it. Go away shithead. Go grow up.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I blame Bush.

 

[The T]

I blame Bush.

Go and READ the TOPIC...LISTEN to the commeantary...Premature emasculation you seek with the 'BUSH' crap?

Tells me you haven't PAID ATTENTION nor READ the OP.

Go back and try to be REAL this time?

 

[Sarah G]

I blame Bush.

Go and READ the TOPIC...LISTEN to the commeantary...Premature emasculation you seek with the 'BUSH' crap?

Tells me you haven't PAID ATTENTION nor READ the OP.

Go back and try to be REAL this time?

Are you STILL trying to sell this Levin character?

Hey, they love the guy over at Hannity, maybe you can get some positive response back there..

 

[naomibee]

great stuffi miss listening to him dont get it here.

 

[boedicca]

He is to big to fail.

Sadly, I do believe you are correct. The MSM will bury this story.