Posted on 05/29/2010 10:10:41 AM PDT by nhungerford
The New York Times editorializes today that
There doesn’t seem to be anything terribly unethical about the White House offer of an unpaid advisory position to Joe Sestak if he would bow out of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, in which he later defeated Senator Arlen Specter.
The Times‘ only criticism of the offer was that it was an “unintelligent” thing to do.
How far the Times will go in making excuses for its favorite president is no better demonstrated than by its willingness to excuse a prima facie case of an attempted quid pro quo in violation of federal statute 18 U.S.C. 600 - a promise of an appointment to an Executive Branch position in return for the political act by Sestak to drop his primary challenge and pave the way for Specter’s nomination by the Democratic Party establishment.
Taking the White House counsel’s self-serving memo at face value, the newspaper of record concluded that there was all smoke and no fire to the attempts by
Republicans and the conservative blogosphere to hyperinflate it into the grave scandal it turned out, on Friday, not to be.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
And I’m certain they would have come to the same conclusion had this happened under GWB’s administration/sarc.
My biggest question—and I’m being objective here—don’t all politicians offer their rivals big time political positions so they can get enough votes to be the nominee? And what about all those people who donate to the campaign and “become” ambassadors?”
So to the NY Times, if I go to someone and ask how much or what would I need to give you to get you to do something for me, that does not meet the elements of trying to bribe someone?
Who gives a crap what the NYT says or feels?
They never get anything right, to begin with.
Note to NYT: “Hurry up and fold, will ya? You’re wasting valuable air, ink and paper.”
Sestak case deepens--did White House commit a felony by offering a job to Sestak?
The Judge's commentary:
Well the ramifications are potentially enormous. I mean to offer someone something of value in order to affect their official behavior as a member of Congress is a felony. We call it a bribe. To offer someone something of value to affect the outcome of an election is a felony. Each of those carries five years with them. The government has an affirmative obligation to investigate this.And Congressman Sestak who is a decent guy, we've all interviewed him. He sent you handwritten thank you notes after he was on your show, whether he agrees with you or not. Congressman Sestak has an obligation to tell the truth. Who offered him a job? What was the quid pro quo and what was the job? If he doesn't say that voluntarily a federal prosecutor should bring him before a grand jury and the grand jurors will inquire of his knowledge as we like to say.
Rewarding an individual for something in the past does not compare to the certitude of acting in the present in exchange for an immediate reward. Sure, big political boosters are looked upon favorably for certain posts, but there is no certainty of how the future will unfold.
And not just any someone here, we're talking about a sitting member of Congress. These people have their heads so far up 0bama's *a*, it's ridiculous. Well, the article up top is credited to Joe Klein, and we've all been treated to his genius-ness, haven't we?
For months Sestak described the offer as a "JOB." An unpaid advisory position is not a job, and the Slimes, Sestak, and the WH all know this. This latest memo out of the WH is a cover story if I ever heard one. Even the Slimes should be offended by such a transparent lie.
NYT gets its orders from the White House.
Well, I’m sure the NY Times would have excused a similar offer if it had been made a few years ago by the Bush Administration. See, that’s why the NY Times is such a paragon of journalistic integrity.
I agree it’s illegal, I just suspect that a prosecutor is far less likely to proceed if the offer didn’t involve money. Similarly, if it the messenger is a former president (ha!) no prosecutor is going to bring charges no matter how illegal the act.
So IMO the story is simply constructed to avoid prosecution, not make sense. It’s as if the WH lawyer were a law student given a newpaper article and told to make up a story that would best avoid prosecution rather than find out what the truth is.
On that task he would probably get a pretty good grade.
The NY Times? Didn’t that use to be a NEWSpaper.
The NYS are lawyers now?
Idiot posers.
New York Times... the traitor paper.
As time goes by more and more I wonder why the NYT
and the rest of the MSM just doesn’t come out and
admit that they fundamentally believe that what is
moral, ethical, and/or legal is dependent on political
philosophy.
“It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.