that's the best you got? lol.

5/30/2010 9:53:32 PM

I never said your interpretation wasn't valid.

I just think it's amusing you are so confident that it's the only, one right interpretation, when this is self-evidently not the case.

5/30/2010 10:23:01 PM

only, it is. it makes no logical sense to interpret it otherwise. why would they split up the reference to the "benefit" like that. it really makes no sense that way, dude

further, it makes no sense that one could bribe an official with an AG or cabinet post legally, but not some minor weak-ass position, based solely on whether Congress had any part in making the position. really, you are grasping at straws.

and, if I really wanted to be nitpicky, I could point out that the President's appointees are paid via the budget. which is passed by... you guess it. an act of Congress.

5/30/2010 10:49:05 PM

Quote :

"only, it is. it makes no logical sense to interpret it otherwise. why would they split up the reference to the "benefit" like that. it really makes no sense that way, dude "

It makes perfect sense since the aim of the law is to prevent jobs funded by tax payers money to be bartered for sweetheart deals. Not stop the president from choosing a personal advisor to maintain the landscape of congress.

Quote :

"further, it makes no sense that one could bribe an official with an AG or cabinet post legally, but not some minor weak-ass position, based solely on whether Congress had any part in making the position. really, you are grasping at straws."

If you consider that the law, as most laws, at least superficially, are designed to protect tax payer money, it makes perfect sense.

Quote :

"and, if I really wanted to be nitpicky, I could point out that the President's appointees are paid via the budget. which is passed by... you guess it. an act of Congress. "

Except... this was allegedly an unpaid position. So that'd be a very weak argument in this case.

5/31/2010 11:52:34 AM

Quote :

"It makes perfect sense since the aim of the law is to prevent jobs funded by tax payers money to be bartered for sweetheart deals."

and you pulled that from... right. your ass. so, it is your claim that it's OK to bribe with a hugely important job, but a pansy-ass job is off-limits. really? but, I guess SecNav is paid for out of Obama's pockets, right?

Quote :

"Except... this was allegedly an unpaid position."

Except... the alleged position was not available to Sestak. And Clinton would have fucking known it.

5/31/2010 8:07:43 PM

Quote :

" AP Sources: Admin talked jobs with Romanoff By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer – Wed Jun 2, 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. "Mr. Romanoff was recommended to the White House from Democrats in Colorado for a position in the administration," White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton said. "There were some initial conversations with him but no job was ever offered." 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."

No sleaze here, right?

6/3/2010 10:46:04 AM

Obama Grille House Bribes Sestak with Beef Steak?

6/3/2010 12:10:42 PM

It probably should be pointed out that Romanoff applied for the position before starting his Senate run - before the offer was made.

[Edited on June 3, 2010 at 3:37 PM. Reason : Romanoff not Sestak]

6/3/2010 3:23:15 PM

Unfortunately the reality of both situations (both Sestak and Romanoff) is not going to be reported on because the White House has done such a piss poor job of getting out ahead of the story. Both of them for that matter.

And Rahm is doing just a bang up job with this stuff... He's probably not going to last that much longer

6/3/2010 3:35:37 PM

my die-hard, republican dad is convinced that this will be Obama's watergate. I was like

i asked him if he actually gave a shit about the "crime" or if only enjoyed the scandal.

he said "of course i do! this shit is important!"

i didn't believe him.

the end.

[Edited on June 3, 2010 at 4:07 PM. Reason : All I gotta say is Dont Blame Valerie Plame ]

6/3/2010 4:03:52 PM

is your dad aware that every president ever has done this?

6/3/2010 4:16:18 PM

I'm not reading the thread or researching anything. Can someone just tell me if this is illegal. Thanks in advance.

6/3/2010 4:21:00 PM

Yes illegal, even if this does happen all the time.

6/3/2010 4:23:25 PM

I will bet money that every president since George Washington has done something like this. Well, except maybe William Henry Harrison, but I'm sure he would have done something like it if he'd lived long enough to do anything.

It's dubious ethically and legally, sure, but it would be pretty lame to hang the dude out to dry for shit everybody pulls all the time.

6/3/2010 5:01:28 PM

Quote :

"It probably should be pointed out that Romanoff applied for the position before starting his Senate run - before the offer was made."

1) Source?
2) In the context of the law, that he applied for the job before the offer would be irrelevant if the offer was made in exchange for him dropping out of the race.

6/3/2010 6:20:54 PM

I heard it on NPR around 5:15. Just sayin

6/3/2010 9:57:06 PM

Quote :

"my die-hard, republican dad is convinced that this will be Obama's watergate."

I'd be estatic if it just caused people to see President Obama for what he (and every other President) really is . . . a politician. For that matter, whatever your opinion of him as an executive and despite his phenomenal performance as a candidate his record strictly as a politician is fairly mediocre.

6/3/2010 10:38:18 PM

I don't think this is a big deal... I think its about equivalent to the controversy over those attorneys that got fired during Bush's administration.

But turnabout is fair play so let's get it on! Politics is politics and cheap shots will be taken by both sides. When those shots are taken, the other side will always scream bloody murder

6/4/2010 2:31:25 AM

JCASHFAN,

The idea that Democrats still worship Obama like a god is a misconception typically held by future Mitt Romney voters.

I would say that honey moon ended sometime last year (probably around the time Dems had to scale back ambitions on health care reform).

6/4/2010 8:06:18 AM

Looks like the position offered was an executive branch position that is not provided for by act of congress. As such, doesn't look like there would be any merit to a special counsel investigation.

May fail the smell test, but doesn't look illegal under the statute cited.

6/4/2010 2:23:36 PM

Quote :

"Looks like the position offered was an executive branch position that is not provided for by act of congress"

looks like you, too, failed reading comprehension. the "act of Congress" bit only applies to benefits, not to job offers

6/4/2010 5:26:08 PM

I might agree the statute's wording could be confusing, but I disagree with you. If you look in the next section of the US Code you might find the drafters did a better job of conveying the meaning of the text. The meaning trying to be conveyed is actually fairly common in the US Code.

6/4/2010 7:31:09 PM

not at all. 601 is directly protecting US gov't workers. that they are that explicit in 601 shows that in this section only the benefit is what is being referenced.

and that makes sense. Federal gov't workers shouldn't be threatened for political activities.

6/4/2010 11:56:50 PM

No offense, but that makes little sense. Cabinet officials are US government workers. Looks like 601 is just an anti-patronage statute.

Not to mention, the only difference in the language of each is the addition of "special consideration" in obtaining any such benefit in section 600. The addition of the "special consideration portion expands section 600 to include not only the benefit, but also special consideration in obtaining the benefit--thus, there is a difference in the construction--enter the comma.

My final point: It seems that if your interpretation was correct then "other" would not need to be included before "benefit." Looks like benefit is there way of making the statute inclusive--over-inclusive if you ask me. They even go further by not only including "other" benefits (besides compensation, appointments, positions, and contracts), but also "special consideration in obtaining any such benefit."

Either way, we shall see. My money is on no fault found.

[Edited on June 5, 2010 at 12:52 AM. Reason : .]

6/5/2010 12:51:23 AM

Quote :

"The idea that Democrats still worship Obama like a god is a misconception typically held by future Mitt Romney voters."

I wasn't referring to the party leadership, I know they're disillusioned by him (I've been beating that drum for a long time in TSB) as have some of the hard-core activists on the left.

That being said, there is still a disgusting sycophantic lot who resist disillusionment. My cynical soul just likes to bathe in the bitter tears of the disenchanted idealists when they realize they will never really make a difference

6/8/2010 7:01:31 PM