Sestak job offer a bribe?

[applecorped]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/us/politics/25baker.html

"For three months, the White House has refused to say whether it offered a job to Representative Joe Sestak to get him to drop his challenge to Senator Arlen Specter in a Pennsylvania Democratic primary, as Mr. Sestak has asserted.

But the White House wants everyone who suspects that something untoward, or even illegal, might have happened to rest easy: though it still will not reveal what happened, the White House is reassuring skeptics that it has examined its own actions and decided it did nothing wrong. Whatever it was that it did."


Are you reassured?

 

[The Painter]

Are you reassured?

Yes. I am reassured that my initial opinion of Obama was correct. There is no HOPE and CHANGE, just gullible people. What was that line in that song by The Who? "Here's the new Boss. Same as the old Boss".

it has examined its own actions and decided it did nothing wrong. Whatever it was that it did."

Tiger Woods should have tried this.

 

[WildCat]

The most transparent administration ever ever!

 

[tyr_13]

Yes, we have an accusation with little to no evidence, but hell, it sounds bad for the White House, so why the hell not?

 

[rwguinn]

The most transparent administration ever ever!

According to Terry Pratchett, "Transparent" can have two meanings:
1. You can see everything behind it;
2. Invisible

 

[MikeMangum]

Yes, we have an accusation with little to no evidence, but hell, it sounds bad for the White House, so why the hell not?

The evidence is one of the principles involved confirming that it happened. Whether it actually did happen is another story, but I don't see what motivation Sestak would have had to lie about it.

 

[WildCat]

The evidence is one of the principles involved confirming that it happened. Whether it actually did happen is another story, but I don't see what motivation Sestak would have had to lie about it.

Oh yeah, but what has Sestak said about it since the party bosses told him to STFU? Therefore... no evidences!

 

[tyr_13]

The evidence is one of the principles involved confirming that it happened. Whether it actually did happen is another story, but I don't see what motivation Sestak would have had to lie about it.

I'm betting he was offered a job, but that the job was a bribe to get him out of running is another matter entirely. It's possible that the higher up dems thought he'd be more useful in the other position. I'm not going to say it's obviously a bribe or that the offer in and of itself is evidence of it.

 

[WildCat]

I'm betting he was offered a job, but that the job was a bribe to get him out of running is another matter entirely. It's possible that the higher up dems thought he'd be more useful in the other position. I'm not going to say it's obviously a bribe or that the offer in and of itself is evidence of it.

Do you think it's enough for an investigation?

 

[Lurker]

I thought the wording for a bribery charge was "cash or a thing of value". Sestak was not offered cash. Is a job a thing of value? I would posit that "thing of value" is a tangible item of some sort - gold, car, bonds, real estate. A job does have value but I doubt that this would fall under bribery rubric. If it does, then "thing of value" is failry broad and anything could be construed as a "thing of value". An endorsement would be a thing of value by this definition. A quid pro quo vote for a bill would be a thing of value.

If we have "thing of value" loosely defined it would seem that bribery charges would be all over the place in DC and pretty much any government.

 

[MikeMangum]

I'm betting he was offered a job, but that the job was a bribe to get him out of running is another matter entirely. It's possible that the higher up dems thought he'd be more useful in the other position. I'm not going to say it's obviously a bribe or that the offer in and of itself is evidence of it.

Well, the fact that Sestak explicitly said that he was offered a job as a quid pro quo for dropping out of the race, and that the offer was presented to him as such, clarifies things a bit, doesn't it?

Whether he was just spouting off and it never actually happened, we don't know. But you have to ask...why would he have said it if it wasn't true?

Cui bono?

 

[tyr_13]

Do you think it's enough for an investigation?

Not really. I mean, even if it found this was an offer of, "We'll give you this job if you don't run as a reward for your loyalty," instead of, "We are offering you this job because you'd be good at it and obviously that means if you take it you can't run," there isn't anything that important there.

If you mean a journalistic investigation rather than an official one, then yes, by all means.

 

[MikeMangum]

That noted right wing rag, the NYT, has an article about the issue:

For three months, the White House has refused to say whether it offered a job to Representative Joe Sestak to get him to drop his challenge to Senator Arlen Specter in a Pennsylvania Democratic primary, as Mr. Sestak has asserted.

But the White House wants everyone who suspects that something untoward, or even illegal, might have happened to rest easy: though it still will not reveal what happened, the White House is reassuring skeptics that it has examined its own actions and decided it did nothing wrong. Whatever it was that it did.

...

“Improper or not, did you offer him a job in the administration?” asked the host, Bob Schieffer.

“I’m not going to get further into what the conversations were,” Mr. Gibbs replied. “People that have looked into them assure me that they weren’t inappropriate in any way.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the “trust us” response from the White House has not exactly put the matter to rest. With Mr. Sestak’s victory over Mr. Specter in last week’s primary, the questions have returned with intensity, only to remain unanswered. Mr. Gibbs deflected questions 13 times at a White House briefing last week just two days after the primary. Mr. Sestak, a retired admiral, has reaffirmed his assertion without providing any details, like who exactly offered what job.

 

[MikeMangum]

Not really. I mean, even if it found this was an offer of, "We'll give you this job if you don't run as a reward for your loyalty," instead of, "We are offering you this job because you'd be good at it and obviously that means if you take it you can't run," there isn't anything that important there.

There isn't anything important there...except for a bribe. What you described is exactly what is at issue, because it is illegal.

 

[Meadmaker]

I thought the wording for a bribery charge was "cash or a thing of value". Sestak was not offered cash. Is a job a thing of value? I would posit that "thing of value" is a tangible item of some sort - gold, car, bonds, real estate. A job does have value but I doubt that this would fall under bribery rubric. If it does, then "thing of value" is failry broad and anything could be construed as a "thing of value". An endorsement would be a thing of value by this definition. A quid pro quo vote for a bill would be a thing of value.

If we have "thing of value" loosely defined it would seem that bribery charges would be all over the place in DC and pretty much any government.

A job could indeed be a thing of value, and it could be considered so under bribery laws, because it is a vehicle for transferring money. On the other hand, appointing someone to a political position on the basis of political behavior is not generally considered bribery. It's also difficult to make "not running for Senate" part of a bribery deal. All that happened here is that there was some political deal making. As you note, if this were a crime, most of our elected and appointed officials would have to be considered criminals.

 

[WildCat]

It's also difficult to make "not running for Senate" part of a bribery deal. All that happened here is that there was some political deal making.

It wasn't to "not run" for Senate, but to drop out of a race he was already in.

 

[drkitten]

Whether he was just spouting off and it neve actually happened, we don't know. But you have to ask...why would he have said it if it wasn't true?

Oh, be serious.. Telling a lie like that would be great publicity for him.

* It establishes him as a serious contender (he must have a chance at winning, or the administration wouldn't try to buy him off)
* It demonstrates that he's a man of integrity (he can't be bought)

and most importantly

* It gets his name in the papers in a positive context.

The fact that he would benefit from telling such a lie doesn't mean that he is telling a lie. But it's naive to pretend that he didn't benefit from such a claim; if it really didn't benefit him, why would he have mentioned it at all. (Just because you're offered a shady deal doesn't mean you have to tell the papers about it.)

 

[applecorped]

* It gets his name in the papers in a positive context.

Positive in what way?

 

[Meadmaker]

It wasn't to "not run" for Senate, but to drop out of a race he was already in.

Either way, it's pretty normal stuff in DC.

Importantly, it's also not an abuse of office. A Congressman selling his vote is an abuse of office. What is it that Sestak was selling?

I'm no lawyer, and if there is one here they might be able to figure out where the line gets crossed between deal making and bribery. Maybe, just maybe, if someone actually came to Sestak and said, "Joe, if you drop out of the race, we'll make you Undersecretary for Dust Bunnies." there might be a case there. I doubt it, because Sestak hasn't given away anything in exchange for the "bribe", but maybe there is something.

If, however, they said, "Joe, that Senate seat is really important to us, and we think Arlen is our best chance to win it in November. We'd like to think of you as a team player, and we were really considering you for Undersecretary for Dust Bunnies, but we can't have someone in that position who doesn't have the full trust of the President. I'm sure that if you were to drop out of this race, that would really show your commitment to the administration's goals, and I think your nomination would be looked on very favorably." then, I'm extremely confident it would be perfectly legal. Beyond that, it wouldn't just be perfectly legal. It would be totally normal and part of business as usual.

If anyone really thought Obama was going to bring the kind of "change" that ended this sort of deal making, they were hopelessly naive, but it isn't criminal.

 

[Lurker]

A job could indeed be a thing of value, and it could be considered so under bribery laws, because it is a vehicle for transferring money. On the other hand, appointing someone to a political position on the basis of political behavior is not generally considered bribery. It's also difficult to make "not running for Senate" part of a bribery deal. All that happened here is that there was some political deal making. As you note, if this were a crime, most of our elected and appointed officials would have to be considered criminals.

I would say that a job could be considered a bribe if the job in question were disproportionate to the person's experience and history. If someone was used to earning $50k/year and were suddenly offered a job in exchange for dropping out of the race and the new job paid $1M/year then I would agree that this would more easily look like a bribe. If the "bribe' job was commensurate with the previous experience then I would say no.