It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
High Crimes: White House Accused of Using Bribery to Preserve Senate Majority
Has a bombshell just been dropped in the November elections? If a story that broke on Thursday gets enough ink, the answer may be yes.
It’s being reported that the White House has sought to entice Senate primary challengers into dropping their campaigns against incumbent Democrats with the offer of plum government appointments — a jailable offense.
Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator reports on the story, writing:
For the second time in five months, the Obama White House is being accused — by Democrats — of offering high ranking government jobs in return for political favors. What no one is reporting is that this is a violation of federal law that can lead to prison time, a fine or both, according to Title 18, Chapter 11, Section 211 of the United States Code.
The jobs in question? Secretary of the Navy and a position within the U.S. Agency for International Development [USAID].
The newest allegation has been made by Congressman Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), who has launched a promising primary challenge against the Pennsylvania party-switcher, Arlen Specter. While being interviewed by talk-show host Larry Kane, Sestak was asked about whether he had been offered a job to exit the race and, appearing “a little surprised,” answered “yes.” Writes Kane, “I asked him if the job was Navy Secretary [Sestak is a former Navy admiral]. He said, ‘I can’t comment on that.’ In the next few seconds, he admitted that it was a ‘high up’ job, that it came from the White House, and that he didn’t accept the offering.”
Kane says that he later inquired about the matter with the White House press office but never heard back from its staff. This may indicate that the allegation is true. After all, if the Obama administration is guilty, it has a vested interested in not fielding questions about the matter. Otherwise, it places itself in the unenviable position of having to either confess malfeasance or put another lie on the record.
Read more: The New American
Originally posted by Erdna
Even if Obama is behind this, is he not above the law, being President and all? ... As President, his job should be to act in the best interest of the country. By keeping democrats he can trust in power, it will allow the government to do its 'job' better. So he is in a way acting in the best interest in the nation. If you guys want to say that a President shouldnt be able to decide who's in power through bribes because it is illegal, than at the same times others can argue he shouldnt be in power because he is supoprting a war right now and killing people is illegal. Just saying... He IS the law.
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
another day, another attempt to find illegality in this man's presidency.....
--yawn--
Every president does these type of things. Its not going to go anywhere, nor is it going to be pursued.
Whoever pays or offers or promises any money or thing of value,
to any person, firm, or corporation in consideration of the use or
promise to use any influence to procure any appointive office or
place under the United States for any person, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by Erdna
Not true. The president absolutely is NOT above the law. A president does have immunity from civil lawsuits initiated based upon his official acts as president, but he certainly can be prosecuted for criminal acts committed in office.
In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]
The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case."(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.
He might be the last to do such things if the Congress would do the right thing and have him leave in shame.
Originally posted by Perplexity
Exactly, he isn't the first president to do this and he won't be the last.