Sestak and the White House and criminal law
Was anyone convinced by the two-page memo released by the White House on the Sestak jobs program? There was some unintended humor, as befits this posturing administration -- the White House had Bill Clinton offer Sestak an unpaid but prestigious job to get out of the PA Senate primary race. History tells us that Clinton and interns don't mix well.
The Hatch Act (18 USC 600) makes it a crime to a) offer anyone a federal "employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit" b) as a "consideration, favor, or reward" c) for "any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party" involved in a election.
It does not matter, it seems to me, that Bill Clinton was the intermediary (the law prohibits direct and indirect offers), or that the position was unpaid (the law lists employment, compensation, and position separately). The law was obviously intended to stop the practice of offering jobs to wealthy campaign contributors (one has to find ambassadors somewhere), but its text seems to include offers in return for more than just money ("any political activity" or "for the support of . . . any candidate).
One wonders if Ken Starr is available.
- Comment (6)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Sestak and the White House and criminal law
John: It seems the conventional wisdom is that this matter will now fade away, and yet, as you say, one perfectly reasonable reading of the situation leads to the conclusion that a felony has been committed. Other than stomping their feet in protest, what recourse do members of the entirely-out-of-power party have in this instance?
May '10
Re: Sestak and the White House and criminal law
My favorite line on this whole thing is by Prof. Jacobson at the Legal Insurrection blog:
"This White House is Nixonian in its Clintonian ability to parse words."
I don't think this is going away, cover-up always being worse than the crime. If they involved Bubba, they knew from the outset they were committing a crime. Proves guilt before the fact. If they didn't involve Bubba but are merely using him now for cover (in which case what did they promise him to get him to go along with this?), this is a two-fer. Proves guilt after the fact.
Mark Levin devoted hour 1 of his show Friday night to this whole thing - it's a masterpiece.
BTW, just found Ricochet by listening to PJM Political (podcast on my iPhone) - love it already! Thank you, Peter Robinson, wherever you are! (I guess there are glitches, as he said...that is not me under that hat in the pic next to my comment!)
Edited on Jun 1, 2010 at 7:18pmMay '10
Re: Sestak and the White House and criminal law
OK, the guy in the hat disappeared - that is me and granddaughter. :-)
May '10
Re: Sestak and the White House and criminal law
John, With Holder so far nixing an investigation into the Sestak affair, is there another avenue for a serious investigation to be initiated?
Feb '10
Re: Sestak and the White House and criminal law
Surprise surprise!
Jun '10
Re: Sestak and the White House and criminal law
Experience tells me they will get away with it. But if the silly d'affaire Plame merited a special prosecutor this certainly does.
I hate to think a president is a crook, but it walks like a duck.