Nobody is disputing that politicians will offer politicians jobs for political reasons. However, this is not an "official act."
And now Romanoff .... the situation is crying out for a special investigator who will look at the facts fairly and en toto, regardless of whether they exonerate or indict.
And Romanoff wasn't asked to perform an official act either. Since half of the requirement for a crime doesn't exist, a special investigator would be nothing more than a partisan witch hunt, but that is exactly what you want.
You claim I want a witch hunt, but, no, I want truth and justice to prevail. You want to sweep it under the rug and pretend it didn't happen because it doesn't suit your politics.
It has nothing to do with my politics, it has to do with the wording of the law, which requires an official act and something of value offered for it. No official act = no bribery, it doesn't take a special investigator to figure that out, it takes the ability to read and interpret facts. I don't want to ignore that it happened, I would shout it from the mountaintop because the facts do not add up to bribery.
I bet you were just apopleptic due to presidential malfeasance from 2000 to 2008. How did you survive?
I consider attempted bribery with regard to elections as a crime because that is what the law says. Whether this happened needs to be investigated in the clear light of day with the participants either exonerated or indicted by a fair, impartial special investigator who will consider all the facts of the matter.
There were times I was unhappy with Bush, and there were times when I felt we needed a special prosecutor (Halliburton case), but, just as I do now, I do not assign guilt or innocence because there was no investigation. Had there been, as I would be now, I would have been content with either verdict, knowing that justice had been served.
Just because a spouse hires a hitman to murder his or her spouse but the attempt fails, there is no crime. That is akin to your continuing faulty logic.
Though it's been explained to you numerous times, you continue to miss the point. The "official act" thing has nothing to do with the fact that Sestak didn't take the job. Even if he had taken the job, it would not be illegal. Numerous prosecutors, ethic lawyers, good government watchdog groups, and others have all weighed in on the matter, and the idea that it's illegal - or even unethical - has been completely dismissed. The only people pursuing your line of thinking are people who have made it their mission to destroy Obama. Think about that and think about what it means for your position when good government ethics groups - who's entire mission is this type of thing and that have railed on Obama for all sorts of transparency issues - laugh at this as complete nonsense. Simply put, you don't understand the law. From your responses here, it also seems to you don't have any interest in understanding it, given the volume of people who've tried to explain it and pointed to officials who have explained it.
There are as many legal experts who believe the law was broken as there are legal experts who believe no law was broken. The only way to prove who is correct is through a fair, impartial investigation. What is so wrong with proving whether there was a breach of the law -- or whether there was no breach? It seems to be that those who fear the facts want to squelch an investigation.
Really? Cite a few, because I haven't seen any that believe there was wrongdoing here. Anybody who thinks that the law was broken either has no understanding of the law, or is engaging in wishful thinking or that flat are not terribly bright.
Judge Andrew Napolitano alone is good enough for me. However, there are several U.S. representatives who also must not be "terribly bright." All that is being asked is for a fair, impartial investigation of the facts en toto to determine whether there were serious (felonious, if you will) improprieties committed? Why are you and others here so afraid of an investigation?
I am not afraid of anything except wasting money. A special prosecutor for this case would be flushing money we don't have down the toilet. There was no official act, but more to the point, NO OFFICIAL ACT WAS ASKED FOR. Withdrawing from an election is not an official act that only a US Representative could perform. That one thing is required for a bribery charge and not only was there no official act, no official act was even mentioned, much less asked for.
No, there are not. There have been dozens of experts quoted in this thread alone. I challenge you to find a few dozen on the other side. Even GOP-leaning ethics experts laugh this off. I think it's possible you might be guilty of murder. You probably disagree. But to be sure, we should have a fair and impartial investigation, because our opinions have equal weight. Is that your logic? Any time there is an accusation, there must be a full investigation regard of the merits? See above. The facts are already out there. What people fear is a witch hunt.
