Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Or how about when a presidential candidate offers a competitor the office of Vice President if they drop out of the race? (which has pretty much happened in every race I can remember)
That would be a crime under this interpretation also.
That's why you aren't a lawyer...you don't understand this law.
but i am one... and i do ...
and whether a crime was committed, and by whom, depends on the explicit language used.
While I agree that the White House, regardless of who is in office, shouldn't have to address each and every claim against them......At some point, however, shouldn't they address *something*??
It just seems that this administration has spent an inordinate amount of time avoiding the GP.
so the wh can spend public tax payer funds to guarantee the outcome of an election by offering one of the would be participants a high level government job to opt out of the primary. and this is not illegal? and you guys want to bitch casue corporations can contribute money to campaign funds.. do we understand this correctly?? huh?? whatyasay?
How would a political candidate offering the veep slot get into title 18 problems? All he is offering is candidacy, not an official position.
A chance at a high-up position is still considered a "thing of value", just like an actual job would be.
It'd be the same thing in this interpretation. Which means 90% of the presidential candidates of the last 60 years or so would all be guilty of the same "crime".
And hell, while we're at it, how about all the people who are drafted to be cabinet members that are currently serving as representatives, thus opening up their senate, gubernatorial, or congressional seats for others to fill?
They'd have to be included too.
Correct. Dick Durbin is calling for an investigation...at least that guy is being honest about this situation...unlike the spinmasters here who say in their Vinnie Barbarino voice..."What,...where.....who....?
Durbin: Sestak needs to explain job offer
Majority Whip Dick Durbin says Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) should come clean about exactly what he was offered to drop out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary.
"At some point, I think Congressman Sestak needs to make it clear what happened," Durbin said.
Durbin, a close Obama ally, would not specify whether the administration should make a stronger case in denying Sestak's charge that the White House offered the congressman a job in order to end his primary bid against sitting Sen. Arlen Specter.
Like I said...your stupidity belies your education.
You sure do post a lot of unsubstantiated crap that says nothing at all, don't you?
Correct. Dick Durbin is calling for an investigation...at least that guy is being honest about this situation...unlike the spinmasters here who say in their Vinnie Barbarino voice..."What,...where.....who....?
See now there's a line of BS.
Dick Durbin was not "asking for an investigation", he was asking Sestak to tell the truth about his little implication about the Obama administration.
Durbin: Sestak needs to explain job offer - On Congress - POLITICO.com
Durbin: Sestak needs to explain job offer
Majority Whip Dick Durbin says Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) should come clean about exactly what he was offered to drop out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary.
"At some point, I think Congressman Sestak needs to make it clear what happened," Durbin said.
Durbin, a close Obama ally, would not specify whether the administration should make a stronger case in denying Sestak's charge that the White House offered the congressman a job in order to end his primary bid against sitting Sen. Arlen Specter.
No mention of any "investigation", just a friend of the Obama administration telling Sestak to put up or shut up.
211 - “Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year or both.”
Veep candidate isn't an appointive office.
595 - “Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States … uses his official authority for the purposes of interfering with, or affecting the nomination of, or the election of any candidate for office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representative…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
Pres candidate isn't an administrative job and has no official authority attached to it outside of the party.
Like I said...your stupidity belies your education.
You sure do post a lot of unsubstantiated crap that says nothing at all, don't you?
Ok Barbarino here I'll put it in terms you can understand....what.....where......who.....why...law....what.....Obama......cool...Sestak....Where...
yeah....asking questions and ordering someone to make statements that could potentially incriminate the President isn't an investigation...it's just a casual off the cuff remark made to all politicians embroiled in a possible felony.
yeah....asking questions and ordering someone to make statements that could potentially incriminate the President isn't an investigation...it's just a casual off the cuff remark made to all politicians embroiled in a possible felony.
Yeah... no.
He asked Sestak to clarify his statement, because he knows Sestak was talking out his ass.
It's like if a friend of yours told a vicious rumor about you behind your back, and you confronted them and publicly made them tell the truth.
Vice Presidential candidates are chosen by the parties at their conventions - delegates vote for their choice.
for the third time...
because they aren't going to address the torch and pitchfork crowd.
While I agree that the White House, regardless of who is in office, shouldn't have to address each and every claim against them......At some point, however, shouldn't they address *something*??
It just seems that this administration has spent an inordinate amount of time avoiding the GP.
just remember their famous last words.. "Tea Party" "We don't know who these people are."
There's a difference between avoiding charges for avoidance's sake (this admin) and avoiding comment for lack of anything intelligent to add to the conversation (Bush), though!!for the third time...
because they aren't going to address the torch and pitchfork crowd.
While I agree that the White House, regardless of who is in office, shouldn't have to address each and every claim against them......At some point, however, shouldn't they address *something*??
It just seems that this administration has spent an inordinate amount of time avoiding the GP.
well, if i were the president, and i looked at the past thirty some-odd years of presidents, the lesson i would take away is 'respond to nothing' no good can come of it....
worked for bush.
and i'm not saying that to criticize bush, actually, i always marveled at it while he was president.
yeah....asking questions and ordering someone to make statements that could potentially incriminate the President isn't an investigation...it's just a casual off the cuff remark made to all politicians embroiled in a possible felony.
Yeah... no.
He asked Sestak to clarify his statement, because he knows Sestak was talking out his ass.
It's like if a friend of yours told a vicious rumor about you behind your back, and you confronted them and publicly made them tell the truth.
yeah....asking questions and ordering someone to make statements that could potentially incriminate the President isn't an investigation...it's just a casual off the cuff remark made to all politicians embroiled in a possible felony.
Yeah... no.
He asked Sestak to clarify his statement, because he knows Sestak was talking out his ass.
It's like if a friend of yours told a vicious rumor about you behind your back, and you confronted them and publicly made them tell the truth.
So your calling Sestak a liar? What proof do you have he lied to the Press and millions of viewers on TV.
