knoxxsouthy wrote:
So are we just going to pretend Obama didn't bribe this guy to quit the senate race?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Sestak
SestakFollow
Taste the Rainbow.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Samy,
Ah here come the Dems to change the definition of the word bribe.
For the time being a bribe can be described as;
dictionary.com
Jophed,
Simply saying everybody does it is no excuse for breaking the law.
Ah here come the Dems to change the definition of the word bribe.
For the time being a bribe can be described as;
Quote:
anything given or serving to persuade or induce
dictionary.com
Jophed,
Simply saying everybody does it is no excuse for breaking the law.
Wrong again, or Might Ignoramus!
Dictionary.com actually says:
Quote:
bribe
- 6 dictionary results
bribe
   /braɪb/ Show Spelled [brahyb] Show IPA noun, verb, bribed, brib·ing.
–noun
1.
money or any other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting the behavior of a person, esp. in that person's performance as an athlete, public official, etc.: The motorist offered the arresting officer a bribe to let him go.
2.
anything given or serving to persuade or induce: The children were given candy as a bribe to be good.
–verb (used with object)
3.
to give or promise a bribe to: They bribed the reporter to forget about what he had seen.
4.
to influence or corrupt by a bribe: The judge was too honest to be bribed.
–verb (used without object)
5.
to give a bribe; practice bribery.
- 6 dictionary results
bribe
   /braɪb/ Show Spelled [brahyb] Show IPA noun, verb, bribed, brib·ing.
–noun
1.
money or any other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting the behavior of a person, esp. in that person's performance as an athlete, public official, etc.: The motorist offered the arresting officer a bribe to let him go.
2.
anything given or serving to persuade or induce: The children were given candy as a bribe to be good.
–verb (used with object)
3.
to give or promise a bribe to: They bribed the reporter to forget about what he had seen.
4.
to influence or corrupt by a bribe: The judge was too honest to be bribed.
–verb (used without object)
5.
to give a bribe; practice bribery.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bribe
In any event, dictionary definitions are pretty worthless for discussing the law. That's why tomes of legislation come with their own definitions within.
I'm looking forward to people playing Internet Lawyer here, though. Always good for a laugh.
I'm looking forward to people playing Internet Lawyer here, though. Always good for a laugh.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
I also want to point out that if this were Carl Rove accused of asking Sr. to approach someone in the same circumstance we would have non-stop media coverage of it for weeks on end. You can call that speculation
It's not speculation, it's blind guessing based on a profound sense of butt-hurtness.
"Sure, there's no story but if the other guy did it, there'd be a story and so that means this should be a story too!"
Oh come off it Joph! You'd be the one starting the damn thread.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
I also want to point out that if this were Carl Rove accused of asking Sr. to approach someone in the same circumstance we would have non-stop media coverage of it for weeks on end. You can call that speculation, and it may be, but if it is it's educated speculation based on past behavior and the current light treatment of all of this president's failings by the majority of the media.
It's Karl, as in KKK.
And I have to disagree with you there. Cheney and Rove were not shy about discouraging weak candidates from diluting the mix. Candidates did occasionally drop out of races and then quietly show up in D.C.
Here's the thing: it's okay to offer someone a job in good faith, even if you know they're currently trying for a different job. And maybe you're offering the job because you'd rather not see them in th job they're going for; but as long as your offer is a good-faith offer, it's fine.
Saying only one party does this sort of thing is the disingenuous part of this conversation.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
#32ThiefX,
Posted: May 28 2010 at 3:47 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm gonna ignore the ignorant KKK statement.
It's not a felony unless the job comes with a salary.
The main reason Obama wanted Sestak to drop out wasn't to protect Specter, it was to protect the Dem majority in the House. Sestaks House seat is in a purple district, and that district is probably going to have a special election to replace Sestak if he wins the Senate race. There's a very real risk that the GOP will win that seat.
Let's couch this in business terms. A business has two guys vying for a C-level position. One of them won't be missed much in his current position, but the other one heads up a critical department that is going to have a nasty power vacuum if he leaves it. In addition, there's another position in a different department that the 2nd candidate for the C-level might be capable of doing. It's in the Board's best interest to ensure that the power vacuums within the company are kept to a minimum, so they offer the 2nd guy that other open position, in the hopes he'll leave the C-level position alone. He declines, because he believes he will be more effective as the C-level he's gunning for.
Would this be considered an unethical business practice? Hell no. It happens all the freaking time in big companies. Heck, in any organization, even non-profits.
The main reason Obama wanted Sestak to drop out wasn't to protect Specter, it was to protect the Dem majority in the House. Sestaks House seat is in a purple district, and that district is probably going to have a special election to replace Sestak if he wins the Senate race. There's a very real risk that the GOP will win that seat.
Let's couch this in business terms. A business has two guys vying for a C-level position. One of them won't be missed much in his current position, but the other one heads up a critical department that is going to have a nasty power vacuum if he leaves it. In addition, there's another position in a different department that the 2nd candidate for the C-level might be capable of doing. It's in the Board's best interest to ensure that the power vacuums within the company are kept to a minimum, so they offer the 2nd guy that other open position, in the hopes he'll leave the C-level position alone. He declines, because he believes he will be more effective as the C-level he's gunning for.
Would this be considered an unethical business practice? Hell no. It happens all the freaking time in big companies. Heck, in any organization, even non-profits.
Debalic wrote:
Lubriderm the Hand wrote:
His name is an anagram for 'steaks' and it's making me hungry.
I keep thinking it says "Sleestak" and makes me want to watch Land of the Lost reruns...
Oh, good. It's not just me, than.
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
#35ThiefX,
Posted: May 28 2010 at 4:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And once again. In Washington this is a felony.
gbaji wrote:
Oh come off it Joph! You'd be the one starting the damn thread.
What? What was that?? I couldn't hear you over the roar of your butt-hurt tears.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
ThiefX wrote:
Quote:
And I have to disagree with you there. Cheney and Rove were not shy about discouraging weak candidates from diluting the mix. Candidates did occasionally drop out of races and then quietly show up in D.C.
Marc Ambinder wrote:
More recently, after Rep. Ben Gilman found his congressional district eliminated by redistricting in 2002, the White House tried to persuade him from challenging another Republican congressman in another district by considering him for an administration position. Karl Rove repeatedly intervened in Republican primaries. And Tim Pawlenty is not a senator because Rove urged him to run for governor instead.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I can't even get people to send me a decent bribe to make them Guru.
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#39ThiefX,
Posted: May 28 2010 at 4:46 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If a liberal for the Atlantic says so then it must be true.
ThiefX wrote:
If a liberal for the Atlantic says so then it must be true.
Well that's easier than a real response, I guess.
Quote:
Are you really trying to excuse this?
There's nothing to excuse. A better question would be "You're really going to try to make something of this?"
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Here the case would be for federal bribery pursuant to 18 USCS § 201 and I have provided the pertinent paragraphs:
18 USCS § 201 (emphasis added). Sestak was not engaged in any official acts when he was faced with a decision to accept an appointment or run for senate. Furthermore, since those activities involved no fraud or violation of a lawful duty, any claims for bribery will fail.
Quote:
§ 201. Bribery of public officials
(a)(1) the term "public official" means Member of Congress, … either before or after such official has qualified….
…
(a)(3) the term "official act" means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official's official capacity, or in such official's place of trust or profit.
[One is guilty if they] (1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent--
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(a)(1) the term "public official" means Member of Congress, … either before or after such official has qualified….
…
(a)(3) the term "official act" means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official's official capacity, or in such official's place of trust or profit.
[One is guilty if they] (1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent--
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
18 USCS § 201 (emphasis added). Sestak was not engaged in any official acts when he was faced with a decision to accept an appointment or run for senate. Furthermore, since those activities involved no fraud or violation of a lawful duty, any claims for bribery will fail.
"Citing your sources isn't spoon feeding, it's basic 101 if you're making an argument."-Jophiel
ThiefX wrote:
I guess you missed this part of my post
I'm not really interested in playing the game where I give examples and you say "No!! Doesn't count!!". I know you're hard up to try to pretend this all means something but that ain't the way the dice landed. Maybe next time, champ.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
catwho wrote:
It's not a felony unless the job comes with a salary.
Doesn't matter actually. Offering someone *anything* in order to induce them to change their decisions politically is a crime. And yes. This does happen all the time. The difference is that as long as neither the offerer or the offeree go out and say publicly that there was a quid-pro-quo deal cut, no one actually does anything about it.
That's the difference here. Sestak, either because of honest bitterness about it, or naive ignorance of the legal consequences, made public allegations that he was offered a job to drop out of the primary. That's why this is a big deal. We all sit here and assume that when someone shows up at the White House, has a talk with the folks there, and then changes course politically, and a few months later gets a job, or a favor, or sits on a board, or whatever, that there was a deal cut. Everyone knows this. But you can't charge anyone with a crime unless you can prove it and so no one investigates it.
Sestak has put himself in a tough spot because now that he's made public statements to that effect, he may be subjected to charges if he changes his statement as well. From what I've heard, that may just be a misdemeanor offense though. It's going to depend if he's willing to effectively flush his career down the toilet by claiming he made a false allegation during the primary campaign, or if he's willing to effectively flush his career as a Democrat down the toilet by sticking to his story and potentially getting a former President and a senior staff member or three of the White House indicted.
Quote:
The main reason Obama wanted Sestak to drop out wasn't to protect Specter, it was to protect the Dem majority in the House. Sestaks House seat is in a purple district, and that district is probably going to have a special election to replace Sestak if he wins the Senate race. There's a very real risk that the GOP will win that seat.
Why would they offer him a position in the White House then? That doesn't keep him in the Congressional seat either...
What's so funny about this is that it's the fallout of another deal they cut. They wanted a super majority in the Senate, and Specter was willing to jump ship. Presumably, part of that deal was the Dem party support for him running as a Dem in the future. Obviously, that's speculation, but I think it's pretty darn safe speculation. So this deal attempt was a fall out from that deal. And no matter what happens with Sestak, it looks like the whole deal has pretty much blown up in their faces.
Good thing they're going to be an administration of transparency and end the culture of corruption plaguing Washington! They sure seem to be doing a bang up job of that...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Addikeys wrote:
Sestak was not engaged in any official acts when he was faced with a decision to accept an appointment or run for senate.
Choosing to leave the house and run for the Senate absolutely affects an "official act", doubly so for someone who is currently a sitting member of Congress. Attempting to influence him to either stay in the House, or take a position in the White House instead of running at all absolutely meets this criteria.
Quote:
Furthermore, since those activities involved no fraud or violation of a lawful duty, any claims for bribery will fail.
Doesn't matter. That's what the "or" in the law means. Any of that list of things meeting the criteria is sufficient.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Choosing to leave the house and run for the Senate absolutely affects an "official act", doubly so for someone who is currently a sitting member of Congress. Attempting to influence him to either stay in the House, or take a position in the White House instead of running at all absolutely meets this criteria.
No. I will reiterate: running for election (or deciding not to) has nothing to do with questions, matters, causes, suits, proceedings, or controversies (pending or in the future) brought before Sestak. Under your interpretation, campaign contributions constitute bribery because it would be an attempt to influence him to stay in office. Furthermore, it would be bribery against him if you influenced another to run against him.
Quote:
Addikeys Wrote:Furthermore, since those activities involved no fraud or violation of a lawful duty, any claims for bribery will fail.
Gbaji Wrote: Doesn't matter. That's what the "or" in the law means. Any of that list of things meeting the criteria is sufficient.
Gbaji Wrote: Doesn't matter. That's what the "or" in the law means. Any of that list of things meeting the criteria is sufficient.
Great analysis there genius, but the word "furthermore" (def. besides, in addition) is preceded by a bunch of other words I wrote. You should know, you apparently read them. To explain it to you: fraud and/or violation of a lawful duty aren't at issue and there isn't any issue that running for election = official acts.
Edited, May 28th 2010 9:32pm by Addikeys
"Citing your sources isn't spoon feeding, it's basic 101 if you're making an argument."-Jophiel
gbaji wrote:
Why would they offer him a position in the White House then? That doesn't keep him in the Congressional seat either...
They offered an unpaid advisory role specifically because he wouldn't be able to keep his House seat and take another paid role and Emanuel didn't want him leaving the House seat. Potentially, depending on the advisory role, he may not have been able to take that either but it never got that far since Sestak was committed to the senate race.
Quote:
Good thing they're going to be an administration of transparency and end the culture of corruption plaguing Washington!
I realize that you guys need to grasp at some line to try to give this play but there was nothing corrupt or seedy about this. Nothing is going to come of it. But this has been a bad polling week for the GOP and they need to grab something to try to regain some momentum.
Edited, May 28th 2010 8:46pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
ThiefX wrote:
And once again. In Washington this is a felony.
No, it's not.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Recent Visitors: 247
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (247)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Sestak
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC