Sestak

#1
lawgator1

lawgator1

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
72,736
Likes
42,919
#1
White House admits effort to keep Sestak out of Senate race - CNN.com


I really don't know what the law is here. Is it illegal to offer to a member of the House an unpaid advisory position if he sticks in his seat and doesn't go up against Specter? I really don't know. I imagine it goes on all the time, that that it makes it right. I guess I'd be more concerned about it if the position was for a job with a lot of money or power.
 
#2
#2
unpaid advisory or senate. . . . unpaid advisory or senate. . . .

you can't seriously believe those were the two options?
 
#3
#3
It may be against the law if it can b e perceived to be a something 'of value' to Sestak. However, if there isn't an actual paying position involved, then I don't think that there is anything to really go after. Political deals are cut every day that involve 'something of value' to those that cut them.
 
#5
#5
droski said:
unpaid advisory or senate. . . . unpaid advisory or senate. . . .

you can't seriously believe those were the two options?
Click to expand...

Well, it would actually be Congressman and unpaid adviser or Senator. With that said, this could not have been a run of the mill advisory role, or it wouldn't be worth it. My guess is that it had a lot do do with 'bringing him into the circle.' There are not a whole lot of paid positions they could have offered him that would have trumped Senator, most likely.
 
#6
#6
considering the two parties have had months to get their stories straight, is this really surprising?

From the moment Sestak opened his mouth about this issue, both he and the WH could have put the matter to rest by stating that it was for an unpaid advisory role and that he would stay a US Rep.

I'm calling BS on this one.
 
#7
#7
Without a doubt, it could all be made up. That may depend on how much evidence they have to back it up vs. what is out there to suggest otherwise.
 
#8
#8
MG1968 said:
considering the two parties have had months to get their stories straight, is this really surprising?

From the moment Sestak opened his mouth about this issue, both he and the WH could have put the matter to rest by stating that it was for an unpaid advisory role and that he would stay a US Rep.

I'm calling BS on this one.
Click to expand...

HEY!!! easy with that common sense stuff around here!!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#9
#9
Interesting suggestion, that it was more than that. I don't know. I can see why some would hope that it was signfiicantly more than that. But I don't know.

Come to think of it, what if they offered him a billion dollars? Not to run? I'm not sure even what that means, legally.
 
#10
#10
lawgator1 said:
Interesting suggestion, that it was more than that. I don't know. I can see why some would hope that it was signfiicantly more than that. But I don't know.

Come to think of it, what if they offered him a billion dollars? Not to run? I'm not sure even what that means, legally.
Click to expand...

if that's all they had to offer him the obvious question is why offer it at all? all i'm asking is you use some common sense.
 
#11
#11
The way this has played out is a little odd but that's the nature of politics. It is very likely there is more to the story and that early on when Sestak let the cat out of the bag he was offended and mad enough to get his pound of flesh. Later when he calmed down and thought about it he realized the democrat machine could bury him and decided to play ball with this admin.

I'm not saying this is without a doubt the way it played out but it makes just as much sense, maybe more sense, than the official line we are starting to see play out. Especially considering how tight lipped the admin and Sestak have become recently.
 
#12
#12
Seems like its going to fizzle out.

Poor Sean Hannity. He was actually talking prison and impeachment the other day, lol.
 
#13
#13
clearly he was telling the truth when he made the original statement and was too stupid to realize the implications of saying it until later.
 
#14
#14
lawgator1 said:
Seems like its going to fizzle out.

Poor Sean Hannity. He was actually talking prison and impeachment the other day, lol.
Click to expand...

yes when the savior speaks we should all just bow down and take it as gospel because clearly he doesn't have a history of lying for his own benefit.
 
#15
#15
lawgator1 said:
Seems like its going to fizzle out.

Poor Sean Hannity. He was actually talking prison and impeachment the other day, lol.
Click to expand...

sort of like how your side was beside itself when Bush fired a couple of US Attorneys, much ado about nothing.
 
#16
#16
droski said:
yes when the savior speaks we should all just bow down and take it as gospel because clearly he doesn't have a history of lying for his own benefit.
Click to expand...

and with Slick Willy involved we can be assured no one is lying about what happened
 
#17
#17
MG1968 said:
sort of like how your side was beside itself when Bush fired a couple of US Attorneys, much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...

just like the haliburton issue dropped when cheney said he had no influence over the decision making.
 
#18
#18
droski said:
clearly he was telling the truth when he made the original statement and was too stupid to realize the implications of saying it until later.
Click to expand...


Or he was too busy being a big shot to the press about how he had knocked off Specter to speak in measure and accurate words.

My money is on that.


droski said:
yes when the savior speaks we should all just bow down and take it as gospel because clearly he doesn't have a history of lying for his own benefit.
Click to expand...


He's a politician. Does not compute.


MG1968 said:
sort of like how your side was beside itself when Bush fired a couple of US Attorneys, much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...


I thought it was kind of weasely but in the end not illegal. Same here, probably.
 
#19
#19
lawgator1 said:
Or he was too busy being a big shot to the press about how he had knocked off Specter to speak in measure and accurate words.

My money is on that.
Click to expand...

wasnt' this your original argument for why the offer was never made? whoops.
 
#20
#20
droski said:
wasnt' this your original argument for why the offer was never made? whoops.
Click to expand...


Yes, and it appears an offer to be Sec of the Navy was not, in fact made. Nor was there anything else of any substance, offered. But Sestak made it sound like it was because he was all full of himself for having gotten the nomination in spite of the Dem machine trying to keep it for Specter.

Sestak realizes that all he has done is give the TPers something lame to glomb onto in hopes of ginning up a controversy where there is none.

whoops, back at you.
 
#22
#22
Sestak was probably shown pictures of Vince Foster and Ron Brown and was then told a story about what happens when you leave the reservation.

Nothing buys loyalty better with the democrats than being shown the consequences of thinking for yourself.
 
#23
#23
MG1968 said:
Sestak was probably shown pictures of Vince Foster and Ron Brown and was then told a story about what happens when you leave the reservation.

Nothing buys loyalty better with the democrats than being shown the consequences of thinking for yourself.
Click to expand...


I laughed so hard I peed a little.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top