Obama using bribes to maintain Senate Majority

I'm not sure if the underlying idea of what is expressed in the statutes is being correctly interpreted.

First let me point out that the guy who wrote the original article at the American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord, who is identified on it as “a former Reagan White House political director and author,” seems to have failed to get the right statute. He cites 18 U.S.C. §211, when clearly that statute doesn't apply to the accusation he's making.

The accusation being made is of a crime committed by the Obama administration by offering a job in exchange for a political favor. 18 U.S.C. §211 is titled “Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office,” and, as indicative of the name, and the language in the statute itself, it's for cases when people accept or ask for “any money or thing of value” to support or influence in obtaining an appointive job for someone. I interpret this as people who act as intermediaries by asking for, or accepting, money or things of value, to get someone in an appointive job.

Then a member mentioned 18 U.S.C. §210. That one, to me, does make sense considering the accusation that is being made regarding the Obama administration's alleged actions. 18 U.S.C. §210 is titled “Offer to procure appointive public office” and states

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.

Now, this statute, at first glance, could apply considering the allegations. However, if you look at the language, the offense, first of all, seems to be dependent on the payment, offering, promises of money or thing of value, and secondly it seems to apply to “any person, firm, or corporation in consideration of the use or promise to use any influence to procure any appointive office.” In other words, it would apply to someone paying, offering or promising “money or thing of value” for someone to consider using or using influence to get someone an appointive job.

In my perspective the scenario that the Obama administration is being accused here isn't covered by either §210 or §211. We're being told that the Obama administration offered someone a job for a political favor. In neither of these statutes is there anything against offering the job per se, only offering (or accepting) financial or material gains in exchange for the influence to get someone a job.

Assuming the allegations are true, they are ethically reprehensible in my opinion. I'm not sure, however, if the actions are illegal. But strictly talking about these statutes, I don't think they apply to the allegations we're told.

Well Sestak did claim it happened last July right before he anounced he would run. This ran in DoD Buzz in December.

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-​​Penn.), the former admiral who was fired by the man who is now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, appears to be in the running for Navy Secretary.

At this point it is hard to tell if Sestak is promoting himself — often the kiss of death for those seeking senior positions in a new administration — or if the Obama administration is considering his nomination.

I am still very suspicious however. I find it funny that he leveled acusations without details.

"I'm not going to say who or how and what was offered," Sestak said in an interview. "I don't feel it's appropriate to go beyond what I said," because the conversation was confidential.

If it was confidential why even answer the question with a direct answer?

"He asked me the question, and I had to answer it honestly," Sestak said of his exchange with Kane. Sestak said he had declined the job offer immediately and added, "The person said, 'I knew you'd say that.' "

You had to answer that question, but not the questions asked afterwards? That just doesn't make any sense. If the conversation was confidential, and he wasn't supposed to talk about it, shouldn't he have avoided mentioning the conversation took place?

The last sentence makes me believe it is a stretch if not out right lie. He can not divulge any details. Yet, he can tell us the one part that makes him look like a hero.

If it wasn't for the DoD article I would call BS right now.

Philly Inquirer

reply to post by SaturnFX


I kind of see your point on this. I don't like Obama in the least, but I agree that the source should be properly considered. This may just be loose talk. It is not hard news yet, but blogs can turn into major news stories in this digital age. I can't tell if this one will have any legs. But I think it should at least be discussed.

As for some of the other posters saying that everyone in government does it, well, I don't think that is reason to give a pass to unethical, perhaps illegal activity. We all speak out against the "criminals" in the government regardless of our individual political affiliations. I am concerned that if we just give a pass whenever these things come up, we have really lost the spirit of public accountability. If there is one theme that I think most people in a democracy can get behind, it is this. Just my dos centavos.

Anyone who thinks Obama and Bush are on the same level when it comes to criminal acts from Washington is a complete moron.

It's like comparing shoplifting with murder.

I sear to God I truly believe if 9/11 occurred under the Obama administration, the 'Inside Job' movement would have gone mainstream and been encouraged by FOX News. The truth is... FOX News and the Right-Wing Shadow Government wants Obama to get assassinated.

So, just curious... what is it exactly about a guy that promotes Healthcare, expresses a desire to shutdown Gitmo, a desire to talk to leaders we're in conflict with, wants to allow gays to serve openly, actually allows differing views within the white house without accusing people of being Anti-American.... what is it exactly that makes you so damn scared of him.... and so at ease with Bush and Cheney? I swear the f*cking world is so damn retarded .

There is no right and wrong anymore. Only right and left. Everything is falsely equal. 2+2=99 according to my Freedom of Speech. That's the retarded world we live in.

It's like saying the Right-Wing Hitler Political Party was just as bad as the Left-Wing Anti-Hitler Political Party... Pre-emptive Invasions bad? Clearly someone is drinking the Anti-Hitler Kool-Aid... freaking Communists.

Guess what, people... SOME CRIMES ARE GREATER THAN OTHERS.

But you want to say they are the same....

If...
Bush/Cheney/9-11/anthrax attacks/WMD myth/torture/habeas corpus/valerie plame/U.S. attorney firings/threat levels/iraq lies/manipulation = Obama/birth certificate/affordable healthcare
Then...
YOU = RETARDED.

This is a classical example of why the founding fathers wanted three branches of government to keep each other in check, then if any of them did something illegal they would catch each other. But now we no longer have any such divisions. It is all controlled by the executive branch for the executive branch. If the executive wants to abuse his power to stack the legislative branch, nobody is going to stop him. The supreme court was stacked way way back. The American people have been conditioned to be lax about legality and lenient about morality. Even your children's movies take a blind look at theft for instance. Watch Flushed Away, a delightful movie in which Roddy the rat hero doesn't think twice about stealing the jewels of the family of whom he is a pet. This is an example to our children. We live in a different age, morality and honesty are out the window. Most of America has no clue how badly they have been robbed by the government. We are fighting immoral genocidal wars to build empire for some stuck ups, and letting our young men kill and die for nothing. What a waste. What a waste this last couple of years have been since the economic meltdown, which was simply the elite banksters robbing the country. People are in the streets with children. Their lives are in ruins. And why, because some banksters want to play around with the world's resources and cheat us.

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Forget the whole birther thing, this may be even bigger.

Some Democrats who had sought to challenge Democratic incumbents in upcoming primaries are claiming the Obama administration offered them plum political appointments if they drop their campaigns.

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

Unfortunately, with the Democrats in charge of everything right now, I doubt anyone will seriously look into this unless someone makes a big enough fuss about it.

With the MSM controlled by the administration, I doubt we'll even hear much about this.

I read Kane's column and he didn't even bother to mention that what the President was doing is illegal.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by FortAnthem]

He had to bribe that one senator down in Louisiana to get her vote with more money to her state, what else is new. I have this strange feeling that Obama is painting himself in a corner and people who know it are letting him do it in order to take him down in the next presidential election. This way the republicans will have a shot of taking the whitehouse from a weakened Obama.

It's because we no longer have 2 parties working for the country... we have 2 teams fighting for the Super Bowl.

Why would 1 team do anything to help the other... it would only help them gain yardage and win the next Superbowl...

Nobody in power really cares about whats good for the country. They only care about their team winning.

The real joke is on anyone who joins the military and dies for a game no one really cares about.

In the NWO, bribes are part and parcel to an End.
I suppose 'the' link below could be 'a' thematic of it all:
Beached though Not broken. .....with Reckless 'abandonment'.

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.

"Is he not above the law?" Please tell me you're not serious. READ THE CONSTITUTION! I mean, you're essentially saying that he can do whatever he wants as long as it is politically expedient which helps him "do his job better?" Of all the irrational, pathetic, herd animal-mentalities I've seen espoused on this forum, this one is right up there.

Simply because it is now "in vogue" to wipe your a$$ with the most sacred document in the free world DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT! OR LEGAL! The "Messiah" and his cadre of Chicago gangsters have broken about every law possible that deals with election law starting when he was a lil' junior state senator in Illinois and wanted to challenge Jerry Ryan for the national Senate seat. LOOK IT UP.

His stupid looking pumpkin ought to be on a stick right along with Bush's 41and 43 and Clinton as well! The only reason they are not is because we have an entire culture of apathetic "bread & circuses" sheep that would rather abdicate any civil responsiblity they might have learned in SCROOL had they not been inculcated by the very same THUGOCRACY that should be removed, ran out of town, and lynched from the nearest cottonwood! The Founders would have done no less.

Your comments prove my points and demonstrate just how weak and how far removed from reality this despicable society has become. Rome fell the same way. Enjoy your coming dystopia. It'll be ugly.

Originally posted by downisreallyup

Originally posted by Erdna
reply to post by trueperspective

 

Why? Because he is the President. He is the binding force behind the nation. He is the law and has the power. He cannot do anything illegal.
Clinton had sexual relations in his office. He used an office paid by taxpayers for his own fun. Sure people smeared him but in the end, he did nothing wrong because he did it and cannot do anything wrong. He is always right. The guy's still loved by the public because you cant touch him. They have no power. They accepted in then and should do the same now.
President's can do what they want. Why don't people understand this?

Because that's not the way the United States is supposed to work. The President is not a King! For heaven's sake! What's wrong with you anyhow? It is supposed to be a Republic, a government run by the people. The President is only the executive, who is supposed to implement the LAWS enacted by the congress. It was never envisioned for the President to be above any law, never mind deciding the law. Why do you think the idea of Impeachment exists? Exactly!

Some of you Americans are so silly in your lack of understanding about your very own country, you need people from other countries to educate you on your own system.

Well, I've got news for you... the President takes an oath to defend the constitution, and the constitution does NOT give the President absolute control over anything, and Congress only has direct jurisdiction over the 10 sq./mile plot known as Washington, D.C. Each state is a sovereign government, able to decided it's own destiny with regards to everything that is not mentioned in the constitution, and it is only the states who can change the constitution. The Federal government is there to provide certain global services to all the states, such as a common defense, and to regulate a common currency, but beyond that, the states are to be the primary government each Citizen is accountable to.

Do you understand that you are a Citizen in the state where you reside? Do you call yourself a citizen of that state? If not, and if you don't know the constitution of that state, then you do not understand America... you should move to some other country that has only a single governmental body, since that is obviously more to your understanding and liking.

The people need to stop treating the President as a king, because he is nothing like a king, nor should he be. He is the hired executive, and you people are the "board of directors." People who want to serve a king are weak and infantile. Adults know how to govern themselves, and communities are fully capable of dealing with their own problems and challenges. Only immature "citizens" look for their king to provide all that they need. It is a grossly outdated and outmoded way of seeing government, based on a serf mentality that seeks to please the "lord of the manner."

Could not have said it better myself. And the American herd animals wonder why their once First World becon of hope is now decending into a bad Mad Max movie. The comments you replied to are "exhibit A"

Originally posted by waycoolsnoopy
I mean, you're essentially saying that he can do whatever he wants as long as it is politically expedient which helps him "do his job better?" Of all the irrational, pathetic, herd animal-mentalities I've seen espoused on this forum, this one is right up there.

I assume you haven't heard Cheney's arguments or read John Yoo's memos about the powers of the President. And they had the balls to put it in writing at times.

I'm glad the sentiment of a President above the law doesn't sit well with you. Don't look now but it's been happening for a long time.

Originally posted by johnny2127


If this news story is true, does it bother you that this is happening?

Actually it doesn't bother me for one, because I am already resigned that the country is being destroyed and there isn't anything we can do to stop it. Our Constitution has been totally trashed. Our laws are almost meaningless. The powers that be have pushed us into their kind of reality, that power alone rules. If you want a picture of our future watch Shindler's List.

By the by, if somebody is going to impeach him, could they please hurry up about it.

People are so happy to distract the issue with comparing him to Bush. The problem is the same with both. Just because people didn't get around to impeaching Bush doesn't make Obama less culpable. They are both bad, equally bad. They are both the puppets of the same master. So how are they different? They are not.

The people need to take a stand, to set things right. The government is only too happy to retaliate against people who oppose them, look what happened to Major Cook. They forced his employer to fire him. Our government has gone way over the line. If we still had a country the people should be able to let the government know that we live by laws not force. That people acquiesce to the laws because they are fair and apply to everybody.Without laws, without a Constitution we will soon go the way of totalitarian fascism. we probably already have.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by m khan]

[edit on 23-2-2010 by m khan]

Impeach him now.
Oh wait, this is America, land of the slaves home of the passive.
Horrible happenings in our Government on the daily..
Yet nobody cares, nobody ever will until blood is shed.

reply to post by Erdna


Actually the constitution is 'the law', goes with the entire living in a republic thing. Now if we lived in a democracy you might have something there.

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.

this has to be a troll

no one is this ignorant.

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.

No he is not above the law, and he is NOT the law. I'm sorry, but that might be one of the most uneducated statements I have read in a long time.

Originally posted by Gakus

this has to be a troll

no one is this ignorant.

I couldnt agree more

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
Anyone who thinks Obama and Bush are on the same level when it comes to criminal acts from Washington is a complete moron.

It's like comparing shoplifting with murder.

I sear to God I truly believe if 9/11 occurred under the Obama administration, the 'Inside Job' movement would have gone mainstream and been encouraged by FOX News. The truth is... FOX News and the Right-Wing Shadow Government wants Obama to get assassinated.

REPLY: If obama had been behind it he would have been much more transparent than bush. Obama usually comes right out and says falsehoods and doesn't worry a bit if anyone listens.
your comment about certain groups wanting him hit is rediculous

So, just curious... what is it exactly about a guy that promotes Healthcare, expresses a desire to shutdown Gitmo, a desire to talk to leaders we're in conflict with, wants to allow gays to serve openly, actually allows differing views within the white house without accusing people of being Anti-American.... what is it exactly that makes you so damn scared of him.... and so at ease with Bush and Cheney? I swear the f*cking world is so damn retarded .

REPLY: promotes healthcare? yeah right, no, what he was promoting was the biggest government grab for power ever seen in the history of the country, with fines and jail for not getting the insurance.
you would be first on your hero's list for confinement or fines.
what it is all about is government control and power grabbing.
and also the left fortifying their entrenchment in power.
The right does the same thing, but it isnt about helping "we the people".
all the other things obama said he wanted to do he has not done and has done full reversals on.. is gitmo closed? are our troops all at home now?
Did he charm all the hostile country's leaders?
all promises broken and you still support him? amazing. you are the only rational person and the rest of the people are so retarded?


There is no right and wrong anymore. Only right and left. Everything is falsely equal. 2+2=99 according to my Freedom of Speech. That's the retarded world we live in.

It's like saying the Right-Wing Hitler Political Party was just as bad as the Left-Wing Anti-Hitler Political Party... Pre-emptive Invasions bad? Clearly someone is drinking the Anti-Hitler Kool-Aid... freaking Communists.
snipped the rest because it is nonsensical

if you still think obama loves you, you should seek some sort of mental health professional

and, no it isn't right and left, it is still about right and wrong, and when wrongs are done it doesn't matter if the person doing the wrong is left or right, they should all be held accountable

[edit on 24-2-2010 by antideceit]

reply to post by spiritualzombie

So, just curious... what is it exactly about a guy that promotes Healthcare, expresses a desire to shutdown Gitmo, a desire to talk to leaders we're in conflict with, wants to allow gays to serve openly, actually allows differing views within the white house without accusing people of being Anti-American.... what is it exactly that makes you so damn scared of him.... and so at ease with Bush and Cheney? I swear the f*cking world is so damn retarded

Well how about reality? The economy is shot and he talks about instituting this healthcare garbage? Who is going to pay for it? Try doing something about the unemployment, then go back and try it when people have money! Gitmo?!? Really he desired it to be closed or was it the right thing to say to get support? Yea I see the talks with Iran have gone splendidly Hey isn't the UN nuke folks saying that Iran maybe enriching uranium for warheads? Gay's in the military, it ought to be fun to see how it gets implemented. How is the view so different in the White House so different now? It is even more tunnel visioned than the last administration. We hear all these wonderful bribe stories from Congress, to buy party members votes? I could see sweetening deals for Rep. to get their votes, but to have to buy votes in your own party? Obama is doing nothing for the people of this country. It is all about him and his time in the sun. How many presidents since we have had TV would appear on talk shows and hell be GIVEN air time to try and sell us his health care plans? HIS PLANS AND DESIRES DON'T MEAN CRAP! He was voted in I thought to run the country and he is ignoring his responsibilities in favor of HIS goals everything else be damned!

There is a quote worth bringing to the table:

"Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder." -George Washington

And it is for this reason that bribery is effective. Obama will not be removed from office as long as the puppet masters have use for him. When and only when they are done with him will he be removed.

I only have this to say...



[edit on 24-2-2010 by EagleTalonZ]