GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Has Bill Clinton Broken Federal Law?

by

Wouldn’t be the first time…. 

But check out this passage from 18 US Code, Section 600 (in reference to the Clinton offer to Sestak for an “unpaid job”).

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.

Will Bill Clinton or Rahm Emanuel be a fall guy and go to jail for Barack Obama?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  1. Neither – The have the Media Magic Special Protection Shield. They have a “D” after their names. Imagine if this was done by Mrs. Palin her home state.

  2. The paragraph is a blur of words; I’ll try to net it out.

    Whoever… promises any employment [or] position… [that was] made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress… to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for… the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election… or in connection with any primary election… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

    Today’s defense from the Obama administration is that the position they had Clinton offer Sestak was unpaid. But, under the law as written (and which I condensed only for clarity), paid/unpaid makes no difference. If the position exists due to some past act of Congress, it’s illegal to offer it as a political bribe. Period. Pay makes NO difference.

  4. Nothing will happen. The double standard is alive and well. If the players involved were Republicans, there would be investigations launced in both houses and a call for a special prosecutor.

  6. Let’s see, the storyline from the Obama Admin is that Joe Sestak was offered a no-pay job to keep him from running for Senate.

    Yeah, that’s plausible. /sarc

    So, was Sestak lying when he said he was offered Secretary of the Navy? That’s what you are forced to conclude if you buy the Obama narrative.

  8. So Tano: Since the Obama administration has admitted that they offered Sestak some job – even if unpaid, as they now claim and as unlikely as that is – can you admit they broke the law?

  9. Ah, no. Thats about the most ridiculous charge ever.

    Its quite the contortion to try to make this into some sort of a quid pro quo. There is no offering of a job in exchange for anything. It is simply offering one job so that the person cannot pursue another.

    This is one of the core functions of political parties – to put forward their strongest candidate (or what they think might be their best candidate) and to place other potential candidates in other positions. This has been done in every administration since George Washingtonl and at every level. There is nothing wrong with it whatsoever, either legally or morally.

  10. It is simply offering one job so that the person cannot pursue another.

    Obviously Tano didn’t read the statute.

    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.

    That is what makes you really hilarious, Tano. You have specifically stated that Obama’s purpose in offering Sestak a job was to interfere with the primary election.

    You don’t even realize criminal behavior any more. I realize that that’s not unusual, given how you’ve boasted of the fact that you are getting paid on government contract from your “employer” to propagandize on these websites, also illegal under Federal law.

    Tell us, Tano; why do you support criminal behavior by Barack Obama?

  11. Ah, no.

    I thought not.

    There is no offering of a job in exchange for anything. It is simply offering one job so that the person cannot pursue another.

    OMG! 🙂 ROTFLMAO 🙂

    Or does your statement come down to the difference between “a job” and “one job”? Was I supposed to read it like this:

    There is no offering of *a* job in exchange for anything. It is simply offering *one* job so that the person cannot pursue another.

    But of course, that would affect the facts not a whit.

  13. That is what makes you really hilarious, Tano. You have specifically stated that Obama’s purpose in offering Sestak a job was to interfere with the primary election.

    NDT, it (Tano) stated that Sestak was offered “one job” so that Sestak would not pursue “another job”, thus not opposing Specter in the primary and effectively supporting Specter in the primary.

    Oops, scratch that last part. Too real. Too much in line with reality. Nothing to see here folks. “Now children, we will have no more curiosity about this bizarre cover-up.” 🙂

  14. is this an appropriate example of a political party making offers to diffuse an otherwise troubling situation . . . via CBS

    One White House official noted, for example, that when New York Rep. Ben Gilman’s House district was eliminated and he was contemplating a bid from another district, the Bush White House in 2002 sought to find an Executive Branch job to make use of his foreign affairs expertise–and discourage him from running in the adjoining district.

    Some Republican lawmakers have questioned whether the offers to Sestak violated federal bribery or extortion statutes. Lawyers said the outreach may have amounted to a technical violation of the law–although they said it’s also the kind of thing that happens all the time in Washington.

    “It’s not the kind of thing anybody likes to talk about, but it does go on,” said former Reagan Justice Department official Michael Carvin. “But it does fall within the literal language of the statute.”

    In a legal memo today, White House Counsel Robert Bauer said the Democratic Party had a “legitimate interest in averting a divisive primary fight.” He said it was believed that Sestak could continue to serve in the House while also taking on additional responsibilities in the Executive Branch.

    Bauer said the White House did nothing wrong in the Sestak case, either.

  15. Roll on the floor laughing indeed. You guys are a riot.

    They don’t call y’all the “stupid party” for nothing, y’know. These contortions you put yourselves through to make an issue of nothing – its hilarious. Especially since this is going to work hugely in favor of Joe Sestak, and probably advantage the WH and the Dems in general, to boot.

    Please please please, drag this out. Make it a major issue for November. Could we please put that right up there with repealing part of the Civil Righs Act, and maybe taking away the people’s right to vote for their Senators? And the return of the preexisting conditions exclusions?

    With every day of this issue, Sestak looks more important (offered big jobs, recruited by a former POTUS), looks more honest (has admitted the offers, and not changed his tune when objections were raised) , looks honorable to anyone who thinks there was anything wrong here (he turned down the job). And who is he running against anyway?? All the attention goes to Sestak, and it is good attention, and no one pays any attention to poor ol’ Pat Toomey.

    And the WH – whoa, any better way to show just how utterly useless and empty the Republican party is? At a time of ongoing economic distress, and the catastrophe in the Gulf, we have the party of ‘no’ focused on trying to gin up a scandal over absolutely nothing.

    There must be some point of diminishing returns (long since passed), for ginning up the rabid wingnut base. But this might be a good one for ginning up the Dem response.

  16. One White House official noted, for example, that when New York Rep. Ben Gilman’s House district was eliminated and he was contemplating a bid from another district, the Bush White House in 2002 sought to find an Executive Branch job to make use of his foreign affairs expertise–and discourage him from running in the adjoining district.

    Ah rusty; your childlike faith in an organization that has consistently lied to you since day one never ceases to amaze.

    Try the facts on for size.

    Gilman played down the prospect of an ambassadorial post. “I haven’t heard any offer of any ambassadorships. Every campaign I’ve heard about an ambassadorship to Siberia, but those things have never taken place,” he said. “I have no offers of any kind.”

    But who WAS actually doing it at the time for Gilman?

    Gilman said Wednesday that New York state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, recently offered to help his re-election campaign with money and resources if he joins the Democratic Party.

    “As I was preparing to leave Mr. Silver’s office he said, ‘Look Ben, if you’re forced into a primary with Sue Kelly, why don’t you run as a Democrat and we’ll fully endorse you.’ ” I said, ‘That’s an interesting proposition,’ ” Gilman said.

    But it is again amusing to watch how CBS just repeats the talking points of the Obama Party without bothering to check facts.

  17. #9: “This is one of the core functions of political parties – to put forward their strongest candidate (or what they think might be their best candidate) and to place other potential candidates in other positions. This has been done in every administration since George Washingtonl and at every level. There is nothing wrong with it whatsoever, either legally or morally.”

    Of course there isn’t anything wrong with it, Tano. It’s a “ridiculous charge”–nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical to see here. It’s a “core function of political parties.”

    And when Bush was the top law enforcement official in the nation and used his unfettered authority to fire seven US attorneys “serving at the pleasure of the President,” I’m sure you similarly saw nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical in that situation either, right?

  18. At a time of ongoing economic distress, and the catastrophe in the Gulf, we have the party of ‘no’ focused on trying to gin up a scandal over absolutely nothing.

    There is no economic distress, according to the Obama Party, and anyone who says otherwise is hypocritical.

    And the Gulf wasn’t a catastrophe, as we see from the fact that, among other things, Barack Obama was too busy attending fundraisers to do anything about it.

    Meanwhile, you have now been caught and cornered in another lie.

    You blabbered above:

    There is no offering of a job in exchange for anything.

    And now you admit:

    With every day of this issue, Sestak looks more important (offered big jobs, recruited by a former POTUS), looks more honest (has admitted the offers, and not changed his tune when objections were raised) , looks honorable to anyone who thinks there was anything wrong here (he turned down the job).

    So to repeat:

    1) You argued that no job was offered

    2) You argued that a job was offered, but that it didn’t matter

    3) You argued that a job was offered, that it was important, and that it was done specifically to interfere with the primary, but that didn’t matter

    In short, you’ve now contradicted yourself three times. Like Sestak, you continue to make a fool of yourself and spin for your Barack Obama, demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are nothing but an Obama puppet who will do whatever Obama says, regardless of whether it is legal.

  19. Tano is pathetic. Just pathetic!

    We all knew that, of course. It’s just that each new low, being a new low, is more stunning than the last.

  20. Good lord!!!

    Its quite the contortion to try to make this into some sort of a quid pro quo. There is no offering of a job in exchange for anything. It is simply offering one job so that the person cannot pursue another.

    It’s not, except that it is. Wanna try again?

  21. These contortions you put yourselves through to make an issue of nothing – its hilarious.

    No, what’s hilarious is watching liberal a-holes go apeshit spicey gonzo for so long betting that Karl Rove leaked Valerie Wilson’s name, then when it came to light that he didn’t, liberal a-holes suddenly were disinterested in the matter and dropped it like a lead balloon.

    THAT’S hilarious.

  23. Absolutely, Tano. Go right ahead.

    So since you state that this is an impeachable offense, will you now demand Obama’s impeachment?

    That’s what really makes you hilarious, child; you simply don’t realize that every time you try to attack Republicans as criminals, you admit that your Obama’s behavior is criminal.

    Go ahead, Tano. Keep demonstrating your foolish hypocrisy and idiocy. Keep showing the world that you are screaming for Reagan’s posthumous impeachment for that for which you praise and support Obama.

  24. Now that we have the “most ethical congress” in history that Pelosi promised… we’re getting a peek behind the curtain of the most ethical white house in history.

    I do hope, though, that the GOP doesn’t spend more time on this than it’s worth – they don’t have the support of the media. With the media’s help, the most picayune peccadillos of conservative pols are turned into first-order scandals and the media. Likewise, the media can make anything short of a naked schoolgirl and a goat in a liberal’s office seem like nothing more than spitting on the sidewalk.

    In the meantime, I confess to a little schadenfreude watching the Obamaroids twist in the wind while the gulf fills up with oil. Karma?

  25. You know a leftie is defeated when they scurry on to the next phase: the “Well Republicans did it too! sort of! I think! Back in 1980! at least I can make it look that way!” defense.

  26. That’s what really makes you hilarious, child; you simply don’t realize that every time you try to attack Republicans as criminals, you admit that your Obama’s behavior is criminal.

    Plus he proves that “Change” was a bullshit catchphrase with ZERO meaning to get the Proles on board.

  27. No, ILC its not that Republicans did it too. Its that everyone has always done things like this. There is nothing wrong about it whatsoever.

    Odd for me to be citing as a source the ethics advisor for the Bush White House, but I guess its all relative. Compared to you guys, even Bushies are relatively sane. LINK

  28. Its that everyone has always done things like this.

    *EXACTLY* as I said: You know a leftie is defeated when they scurry on to the “Well Republicans did it too! sort of! I think! Back in 1980! at least I can make it look that way!” defense.

    There is nothing wrong about it whatsoever.

    On the contrary, Tano: Have you ever heard of United States law? It is against the law.

    Let’s review, one more time:

    Whoever… promises any employment [or] position… [that was] made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress… for… the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party… in connection with any primary election… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

    Facts are stubborn things, aren’t they Tano?

  29. No, ILC its not that Republicans did it too. Its that everyone has always done things like this.

    But you attacked Republicans and demanded that they be impeached and punished for doing it.

    Perhaps you could try some intellectual consistency, Tano; since you claimed Republicans doing it was a crime worthy of impeachment, state that your Obama is a criminal for doing it and should be impeached.

    You simply continue to demonstrate your hypocrisy and partisan blindness.

  32. Hey Tardo!

    May 28, 2010

    Original Sestak Admission At Odds With White House Spin

    Jack Cashill

    Larry Kane, known as the “dean of Philadelphia television news anchors,” has been covering Pennsylvania politics for more than 40 years. During a February 18th interview he asked Congressman Joe Sestak to clarify a rumor he had been hearing for months.

    “Were you ever offered a job to get out of this race?” Kane was referring to the Democratic Senate primary against Arlen Specter.

    “Yes,” Sestak answered.

    “Was it Navy Secretary?”

    “No comment,” said Sestak.

    According to Kane, Sestak talked about staying in the race but added that he “was called many times” to pull out. Later, Kane asked:

    “So you were offered a job by someone in the White House?”

    “Yes.”

    At the end of the taping, Sestak looked surprised and said, “You are the first person who ever asked me that question.” His response to Kane appeared spontaneous and unscripted.

    Kane called the White House Press Office that afternoon and played the interview for a staffer, who promised that someone would call Kane back. A few minutes later, at 3:45 PM, another staffer called and said the White House would call back with a reaction “shortly.”

    Kane’s station played the report aired all night. At 6:45 the next morning, 15 hours later, a Deputy Press Secretary called and said, “You can say the White House says it’s not true.”

    On the Friday before Memorial Day, 100 days later, a classic news dump day, the White House Counsel Robert Bauer issued his report. He claimed that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel enlisted the support of Bill Clinton, “who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board.”

    Remember, when Kane asked a second time, “So you were offered a job by someone in the White House,” Sestak did not equivocate. He said nothing about an “uncompensated” advisory position or an offer by a White House liaison, he simply said, “Yes.”

    Someone’s lying, and Scooter Libby went to jail for less.

  33. #31: CQTM

    Tano is consistent; Democrats are always good and right, Republicans are always evil and wrong. It’s not “intellectual” consistency, but it is consistency… of a sort.

  35. Tano…the Bureau of Indian Affairs needs your amazing ability to speak with “forked tongue.” Come to think of it, the State of California, City of Los Angeles also need you to be their Public Affairs Director of Cattle Excrement. You rival the guy who was telling the Iraqi People that the Infidels were being defeated while the US was bombing the city right behind him!!! (No offense to this guy).

  37. LOL. Is this all you repugnants have? No wonder your party is in the minority.

    And where’s the outrage over Rep. Mark Kirk’s lying about his navy awards?

    Let’s face it; you try to launch these types of attacks because you have NOTHING to offer. NOTHING. The party of NO has no ideas.

    It’s going to be a long, long decade for your morally corrupt hypocrites. You deserve all of it.

  39. Good the Obamaphiles are back. They can help explain Obama being on vacation instead of directing the response to his katrina oil spill. My governor today, Rendell (D) also said today on TV that he has broken this same law, offering individuals jobs to get out of elections and give the people fewer choices. Hopefull the PA district attornies office will also begin prosecution of our out going governor as well as Rep Sestak (D) and former President Clinton(D). I just smile when Democrats get on TV and say “hey, everyone does this kind of bribing…..always have hehe” . Millions of Americans can’t wait to hole em acccountable.

  40. Ok I will provide the outsider pov since that dumb Tano has been show just how dim the Demoncrats are when it comes to crimes.

    I am old enough to remember the news stories about Watergate. I probably took half interest because it was so darn boring. However, we need to get some facts straight about that scandal, as well as the Clinton scandals to understand why Obummer is in deep doo, doo.

    The issue that caused Nixon to resign rather than face impeachment was not the break-in (which was a crime), but the cover-up after the crime.

    NOTE: It was the cover-up that was the offense. It was the lying that was the offense.

    Clinton’s case is more recent. I took a bit more in the way of interest, because I never thought that Clinton was a good choice for President in the first place!!

    The issue that led to Clinton being impeached was PERJURY. It was not about him having consensual sex with an adult female. Neither was it about his rape and attempted rapes of other females. Clinton committed Perjury and he was impeached by the House because of that perjury.

    NOTE: It was the PERJURY that caused Clinton to be impeached. Not the other behaviour.

    In this case, we have a situation where the WH had a favoured candidate – the turncoat Arlen Specter. Obviously the promise to Specter would have been that he would get the Democrat nomination.Joe Sestak got in the way. A reporter asked Sestak if he was offered something not to run for the Senate. Sestak answered yes and then he did not elaborate. The question dropped out of sight until after the primary which Sestak did win. Suddenly the question came up again. Sestak continued to say yes he was offered a high position by the White House.

    Now we have some dummies (Tano) claiming that everyone has done it… however, when you examine the facts, like what Reagan offered, it is clear that the offer was to someone who had no chance of winning. It is the opposite of the Sestak/Specter situation where Sestak was likely to win the primary over Specter.

    Note: the difference in Reagan making the offer and offer to Sestak is that in the case of the Reagan offer the candidate was not going to win the primary. In the PA case Sestak was always looking like the most likely winner.

    However, we now get to the attempts to stonewall, obsfucate and cover up by the White House. As well as breaking the law, the White House has been stonewalling for months. Gibbs was sweating like a pig when the issue was raised. When Major Garrett got in a question at the one and only press conference after 309 days, the response indicated that a “coordinated response” was coming.

    Enter Bill Clinton: He has lunch with Obummer. Then what do you hear? That suddenly there is an admission that Clinton made an offer that involved a position on a Board for which Sestak was ineligible in the first place!!

    Enter Sestak’s brother: prior to the White House issuing the statement laying blame on Bill Clinton, the White House contacted Sestak’s brother to coordinate the response.

    This is a cover-up which is of a magnitude greater than that of the Nixon presidency. The White House Administration should be impeached!!!

  41. @nuttybuckeye,

    If Mark Kirk lied about his awards, then he will get his come uppance. This is not related to the offense committed by the White House.

    Whilst you are at it, why did you not mention that Mark Kirk was being outed as a gay? After all it is true and has been known all around Chicago that he is in fact gay!!

    You see the question is all about honesty. Very few people will go in to bat for Mark Kirk, even the gays in Chicago will not necessarily defend Mark Kirk, and they did not want him to win that primary either!!

    That of course leaves Obummer’s basketball buddy and possible lover, Alexi Giannoulias. Here we have a man who is corrupt. The family bank was seized by the Feds, and most people are unaware that this particular family were “bankers to the mob”.

    So, the press found out that Kirk was lying so that they can help the mobster Giannoulias…. what great choices in Illinois for the position of Senator!!

  43. He didn’t break any federal laws, so now.

    Well, it’s unimportant if he broke any federal laws. What he did is never prosecuted. (So he can’t go to jail, since it isn’t–and never is–prosecuted.)

    Moreover, he lied. We don’t even know what job he was offered. That job he was allegedly offered was one that he was ineligible for (ie a lie).

    No one broke any law that is prosecuted.

  44. @Mitchell, not sure what angle you are taking but there has been a Federal law that has been broken.

    The finger still points to obummer since he has to ok any such offer.

    Now here is my take on the more recent events. First of all it is really obvious that Sestak is not comfortable with the new story. He is so uncomfortable that he let slip that the White House contacted his lawyer brother to get the stories straight.

    Now, as an outsider, when I heard this tidbit it started the alarm bells ringing. This smacks of a cover-up attempt. The way that Sestak refused to say who made the offer in the first place should have had alarm bells ringing.

    This leads to my second point: Does someone in the White House have a dossier on Sestak? Is this going to end up as another Eric Massa situation? Now I am not aware of any such rumours about Sestak but I am putting the question out there because Sestak’s behaviour had been very odd.

    My conclusion is that it was Rahm Emmanuel who did the approaches, and that it was not Bill Clinton. The Bill Clinton approach really sounds lame. It sounds so very contrived. Sestak said he was offered a high up job.. the board offer that was claimed does not meet the qualification of a high up job. On top of that Sestak could not be a member of the House and do the job anyway… so that kinda blows the excuse out of the water.

    On top of that there is the Colorado case of Romanoff who stated that he was approached by Messina and asked to withdraw from the Senate race with Bennet, the WH preferred candidate. He was also offered a high up post of some sort. Romanoff refused and he also went on to win the primary.

    The issue here is the attempt to interfere with the primary and the elections.

    This is not the same as some of the other mentioned situations where the candidate that has been approached was losing anyway. This is about two candidates who were in a position to win the primary against the preferred WH candidate… a whole different kettle of fish.

    It reeks. However, it is the attempted cover-up that is the real issue. Richard Nixon was told he could be impeached for a lot less than what has gone on in this present regime.

  45. Has Bill Clinton Broken Federal Law?

    Depends on what the meaning of the word “law” is. Of course if he or Hilary wind up giving testimony, we’ll be deluged with a flood of I can’t recall.

  46. He didn’t break any federal laws, so now.

    Well, it’s unimportant if he broke any federal laws. What he did is never prosecuted. (So he can’t go to jail, since it isn’t–and never is–prosecuted.)

    Moreover, he lied. We don’t even know what job he was offered. That job he was allegedly offered was one that he was ineligible for (ie a lie).

    No one broke any law that is prosecuted.

    Is that supposed to be a parody of Tano? I can’t make sense of it, except as an attempted parody of Tano.

  47. #40 The modern day crooks, Obama, CLinton, Sestak are much more confident the compliant old media will give them a pass on this bribery.
    “hey everybody does it, it’s politics…..yada yada…..”
    Trouble is Obama and Clinton say they offered Sestak a non paying job to step away from being a Senator, it’s just not plausible. Especially such a lame offer offered by an EX PRESIDENT. Even an ex Pres as slimey as Clinton.