Joe Sestak White House Scandal ‘Impeachable Offense’

Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., had been offered a job by the Obama administration in exchange for dropping out of the senatorial primary against Obama supporter Sen. Arlen Specter. This scandal could be enormous because it’s illegal, the Obama has committed a crime. Sestak said he refused the offer. He continued in the Senate primary and defeated Specter for the Democratic nomination. Accoring to federal code: 18 USC 600 says that a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government, in return for a political act.

18 U.S.C. § 600 : US Code – Section 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity:

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of
Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any
candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

AMENDMENTS
1994 – Pub. L. 103-322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $10,000”.
1976 – Pub. L. 94-453 substituted $10,000 for $1,000 maximum allowable fine.
1972 – Pub. L. 92-225 struck out “work,” after “position,”,inserted “contract, appointment,” after “compensation,” and “or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit,” after “Act of
Congress,”, and substituted “in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
candidates for any political office” for “in any election”.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1972 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 92-225 effective Dec. 31, 1971, or sixty days after date of enactment [Feb. 7, 1972], whichever is later, see section 408 of Pub. L. 92-225, set out as an Effective Date
note under section 431 of Title 2, The Congress.

18 U.S.C. § 211 : US Code – Section 211: Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office:

Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in
obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Whoever solicits or receives any thing of value in consideration of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States
either by referring his name to an executive department or agency of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section shall not apply to such services rendered by an employment agency pursuant to the written request of an executive department or agency of the United States.

PRIOR PROVISIONS
A prior section 211, act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 693, related to an offer of a gratuity to a revenue officer, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 87-849 and is
substantially covered in revised section 201.

AMENDMENTS
1994 – Pub. L. 103-322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $1,000” in two places.

1951 – Act Sept. 13, 1951, inserted second paragraph.

Sec. 595. Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments

Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section shall not prohibit or make unlawful any act by any
officer or employee of any educational or research institution, establishment, agency, or system which is supported in whole or in part by any state or political subdivision thereof, or by the
District of Columbia or by any Territory or Possession of the United States; or by any recognized religious, philanthropic or cultural organization.

AMENDMENTS
1994 – Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 330016(1)(L), which directed the amendment of this section by substituting “under this title” for “not more than $10,000”, could not be executed because the phrase “not more than $10,000” does not appear in text.
Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 330016(1)(H), substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $1,000” in first par.
1970 – Pub. L. 91-405 substituted reference to Delegate from District of Columbia or Resident Commissioner for Delegate or Resident Commissioner from any Territory or Possession.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1970 AMENDMENT
Amendment by Pub. L. 91-405 effective Sept. 22, 1970, see section 206(b) of Pub. L. 91-405, set out as an Effective Date note under section 25a of Title 2, The Congress.

The White House illegally offered Sestak a federal job in exchange for dropping out of the race. Was Joe Sestak embellishing what really happened, or does he have first-hand knowledge of the White House breaking the law trying to bribe him. All fingers are being pointed back to Obama. Obviously, Obama has avoided the issue.

Join Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Links:
Impeach Obama
Rand Paul Comment On Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Transcript)
Dollar Losing Value Under Obama
Obama’s 9 Trillion Dollar DeficitObama Forcing His View Of Health Care On America
If I help him, he’s going to help me
White America Hate Barack Obama
Dan Rather: Obama Couldn’t ‘Sell Watermelons’
Michelle Obama Chimp Image On Google
The Audacity Of Hope Page 261
Glenn Beck calls Obama a racist
Obama Eyeballs E-Mail
FDIC Failed Bank List
Obama Kool Aid Drinkers
Michelle Obama Announces Childhood Obesity Guidelines
Hillary Clinton Warned America About Obama
Why Liberals Hate Free Speech
Celebrities That Have Died Since Obama Has Taken Office
Obama’s Mistress Vera Baker
Bush Billboard, Miss Me Yet?
About Emptysuit
Your Opinion

[tweetmeme source=”emtsut”]

    • Bob
    • May 27th, 2010

    It’s just regular democrat activity. There is no surprise here.

    • Ross Wolf
    • May 27th, 2010

    You may recall when Clinton was President that a number of his associates were imprisoned because they lied to federal investigators. Patriots need to cause federal investigators to question Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa. concerning his statements about being offered a “government job” if he dropped out of his campaign.

    Below I have enclosed information on the U.S. Supreme Court Decision that concerns penalties for (lying to federal investigators) pursuant to 18 USC 1001; including a possible 5-year prison sentence and fine for each false or misleading statement when questioned by the Feds.
    Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa should be forced into this legal arena.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZS.html

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    BROGAN v. UNITED STATES

    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

    No. 96—1579. Argued December 2, 1997–Decided January 26, 1998
    Petitioner falsely answered “no” when federal agents asked him whether he had received any cash or gifts from a company whose employees were represented by the union in which he was an officer. He was indicted on federal bribery charges and for making a false statement within the jurisdiction of a federal agency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. A jury in the District Court found him guilty. The Second Circuit affirmed, categorically rejecting his request to adopt the so-called “exculpatory no” doctrine, which excludes from §1001’s scope false statements that consist of the mere denial of wrongdoing.
    Held: There is no exception to §1001 criminal liability for a false statement consisting merely of an “exculpatory no.” Although many Court of Appeals decisions have embraced the “exculpatory no” doctrine, it is not supported by §1001’s plain language. By its terms, §1001 covers “any” false statement–that is, a false statement “of whatever kind,” United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. ___, ___–including the use of the word “no” in response to a question. Petitioner’s argument that §1001 does not criminalize simple denials of guilt proceeds from two mistaken premises: that the statute criminalizes only those statements that “pervert governmental functions,” and that simple denials of guilt do not do so. United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86, 93, distinguished. His argument that a literal reading of §1001 violates the “spirit” of the Fifth Amendment is rejected because the Fifth Amendment does not confer a privilege to lie. E.g., United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 117. His final argument that the “exculpatory no” doctrine is necessary to eliminate the grave risk that §1001 will be abused by overzealous prosecutors seeking to “pile on” offenses is not supported by the evidence and should, in any event, be addressed to Congress. Pp. 2—8.
    96 F.3d 35, affirmed.

    Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined, and in which Souter, J., joined in part. Souter, J., filed a statement concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Souter, J., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined.

  1. If this is true, then this is big. But for it to be true, there needs to be quotes. Basically, you need testimony or a record of Obama flat out offering the position in exchange for the drop out. Without that, it’s just speculation. So who said what, where did you hear it, and what does it mean?

    • emptysuit
    • May 27th, 2010

    OmniRocky, all this would be answered in a court case, if it gets that far. That will depend on how bad Sestak wants to keep his position. If the pressure gets to him, he will want to clear his name, meaning he lied or he has to expose those involved.

    • Shotgun Sarah
    • May 27th, 2010

    ” November 25, 1981, Associated Press article reported that President Reagan’s political adviser Ed Rollins planned to offer then-California Sen. S.I. Hayakawa a job in the administration in exchange for not seeking re-election. From the AP article:

    Sen. S.I. Hayakawa on Wednesday spurned a Reagan administration suggestion that if he drops out of the crowded Republican Senate primary race in California, President Reagan would find him a job.

    “I’m not interested,” said the 75-year-old Hayakawa.

    “I do not want to be an ambassador, and I do not want an administration post.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s