http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...heres-nothing-wrong-that-was-done.php?ref=fpi Stick a fork in the Communistic Fascist Kenyan. He's done! The case speaks for itself. Guilty of Bribery!
You forgot your The incident merits an investigation of potential wrongdoing, but it's much too early to determine whether any or all are innocent or guilty. I'd prefer to let a trial determine that.
I'll give you some at the end of this... No, it doesn't. Until someone can point to an "official act," meaning something that he did in his capacity as a member of the House, there was no wrongdoing at all. No, it is right about now that someone should show evidence of an "official act" or drop this nonsense. I know you would, but this suggestion deserves nothing more than...
Nothing will be settled here on this board. Personally, I'll be watching to see how this all turns out -- whether there will be an investigation, and, if so, whether there will be indictments, and, if so, whether there will be convictions or exonerations. Regardless, it is great political theater.
Then quote the relevant passage. The statute requires something of value for an "official act." Where is the official act?
Indeed. The precedent is quite clear that this type of thing is neither new nor unique, and is not remotely considered unethical by even ethics experts. And, of course, the precedent is that this statute has never been used to prosecute anything of this sort ever. http://mediamatters.org/research/201005280008 Fun quotes: Bush ethics lawyer calls claim that a job offer is a "bribe" "difficult to support." In a post on the Legal Ethics Forum blog, former Bush administration chief ethics lawyer Richard Painter wrote: "The allegation that the job offer was somehow a 'bribe' in return for Sestak not running in the primary is difficult to support." ... Sloan: "There is no bribery case here." Talking Points Memo's Zachary Roth reported in a May 25 post that "several experts tell TPMmuckraker this is much ado about nothing" and quoted Sloan saying, "There is no bribery case here. ... No statute has ever been used to prosecute anybody for bribery in circumstances like this." Sloan also said: "It's not at all about whether there was actual criminal wrongdoing. ... It's about how to go after Sestak." ... Brand: "I don't put much stock in this, and I don't think its gonna go anywhere;" charges have "no legal substance." Roth also quoted Stan Brand, a "prominent Washington criminal defense lawyer," saying that "people horse trade politically all the time. ... So I don't put much stock in this, and I don't think its gonna go anywhere." Brand is also quoted in Mother Jones magazine saying claims that the alleged actions are illegal "is a nice political ploy. ... But it has no legal substance. The president can promise Sestak the moon for a political reason. That's the system." ... Kaufman: "Tell me a White House that didn't do this, back to George Washington." The New York Times reported that Ron Kaufman, who served as President George H.W. Bush's White House political director, "said it would not be surprising for a White House to use political appointments to accomplish a political goal. 'Tell me a White House that didn't do this, back to George Washington,' Mr. Kaufman said." Riley: "It is completely unexceptional ... the fact that it's spun out into a scandal has been surprising." In a Huffington Post article about how "seasoned political observers, historians, and lawyers are responding [to the allegations] with veritable yawns," Dr. Russell Riley, an associate professor and chair of the Miller Center's Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia, is quoted as saying, "It is completely unexceptional. ... I read some place today that this is evidently illegal, which was shocking news to me. I don't know what the statutes are that would bear on this ... it just doesn't seem to me to particularly rise to the level of being newsworthy in the first place and the fact that it's spun out into a scandal has been surprising." Edwards: "All this is old news historically." The Huffington Post also quoted George Edwards, a distinguished professor of political science and Jordan Chair in presidential studies at Texas A&M University, saying: "There is no question whatsoever that presidents have often offered people positions to encourage them not to do something or make it awkward for them to do it. Presidents have also offered people back-ups if they ran for an office and lost. All this is old news historically." AP: "Ethics attorneys in Washington said such offers are common." A February 19 AP article reported: "Ethics attorneys in Washington said such offers are common. Melanie Sloan, director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, described it as 'politics as usual.' " Wash. Post: "This would hardly be the first administration" to offer a job to "clear the field." A May 25 Washington Post editorial critical of the Obama administration's response stated: "At the same time, of course, political considerations play a role in political appointments. This would hardly be the first administration to use appointments to try to clear the field for a favored candidate."
bribery is not unethical? tell me, major, what happens when the government breaks it's own laws? does it forfeit the (good) will of the governed?
The problem is that the bribery exists only in the minds of people who want to smear Democrats, not in the law.
Of course it is. This doesn't seem to fit the definition of bribery, based on the law, its history, and its purpose. That's the reason no prior President was prosecuted for the exact same things. Are you suggesting you're a fan of using the law for selective prosecution for political purposes? Bad things. However, that apparently hasn't happened here according to the purpose of the law. You'd have to stretch the law in a way it wasn't meant to create that. Are you a fan of judicial activism to rewrite laws to suit your personal political vendettas?
Believe me...I would be the first one to want to prosecute the administration if something illegal happened. I also, however, believe in the application of actual law. Based on the law, I cannot see anything illegal. The bribery statute requires an "official act" as a quid pro quo. Now, Clarice, show me the quid pro quo. You have been asked multiple times in this thread what the official act was. You have failed to even remotely address that question. Therefore, I assume it does not exist and therefore, no crime occurred.
well, Dr. Lechter, i've been out of the loop for a day or two, so forgive me if i've missed the "multiple asks," frankly, it's hard to keep up. i don't believe i've claimed to know whether the stench in this instance indicates laws have been broken, or whether it's just the usual rot emanating from the swamps of DC. however, the stink in this case is at least as repellent as that in the case i cited above, and i think we all know the interest that generated. i fart in your general direction.
Well I do like a nice chianti. :grin: Wrong. You have indicated that you believe that there was impropriety at the least. Said flatulence would be the most intelligent thing you have posted in years.
That is hilarious. You've apparently "missed" multiple asks in literally hundreds of threads over years.
From what I have witness you employ the exact same tactics and you just did so are you calling yourself a hypocrite? Sure sounds like it Also I am not a Republican.
i wonder how many other shoes will drop? [rquoter]AP Sources: Admin talked jobs with Romanoff By PHILIP ELLIOTT The Associated Press Wednesday, June 2, 2010; 6:22 PM WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration dangled the possibility of a government job for former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff last year in hopes he would forgo a challenge to Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, officials said Wednesday, just days after the White House admitted orchestrating a job offer in the Pennsylvania Senate race. These officials declined to specify the job that was floated or the name of the administration official who approached Romanoff, and said no formal offer was ever made. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not cleared to discuss private conversations. The new revelation of a possible political trade again called into question President Barack Obama's repeated promises to run an open government that was above back room deals. The Colorado episode follows a similar controversy in Pennsylvania. An embarrassed White House admitted last Friday that it turned to former President Bill Clinton last year to approach Rep. Joe Sestak about backing out of the primary in favor of an unpaid position on a federal advisory board. Sestak declined the offer and defeated Sen. Arlen Specter late last month for the Democratic nomination after disclosing the job discussions and highlighting it as evidence of his anti-establishment political credentials. He said last week he rejected Clinton's feeler in less than a minute. In a two-page report on the Sestak case, the White House counsel said the administration did nothing illegal or unethical. Unlike Sestak, Romanoff has ducked questions on the subject, and it was not clear how long his discussions with administration officials lasted. Romanoff had sought appointment to the Senate seat that eventually went to Bennet, publicly griped he had been passed over and then discussed possible appointment possibilities inside the administration, one of the officials said. Republicans have strongly criticized the offer to Sestak, and challenged Romanoff to answer questions about his own dealings with the White House. Bennet has outpaced Romanoff in fundraising and support from Washington, although party activists attending the state party assembly last month favored the challenger by a margin of 60 percent to 40 percent. The primary is Aug. 10. Bennet was appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter to fill out the final two years of the term of Ken Salazar, who resigned to become interior secretary. Romanoff's campaign spokesman did not immediately respond to questions.[/rquoter]
