[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Xantar

Oh come on, Strangler. You don't really think anything Obama could do up to and including the firing of Rahm Emanuel would improve bipartisanship at this point, do you?

Yes, I do. There will always be those that will see admission of guilt it as a point of weakness to attack, but I think I don't think you have to convince pundits or opportunists like Boehner to improve bipartisanship. Rahm is a sack of shit running as Chief of Staff. He practices the worst kind of politics and even democrat lawmakers fear and hate his guts. Its only been 18 months and there are already a littany of accusations against him of unethical and possibly illegal behavior. How would firing such a partisan dirt bag NOT improve bipartisanship, at least a little?

Even if if doesn't improve bipartisanship, that doesn't mean that he shouldn't face consequences for unethical and very possibly illegal behavior.

And I know that the White House nominally said that they support Specter, but that was some pretty weak support they were throwing his way. Joe Biden couldn't even be bothered to give an endorsement speech when he was traveling through Pennsylvania.

Irrelevant to the situation.

Oh and by the way, the very worst reading possible of what we know is that the White House may have offered Joe Sestak a position in the administration in order to get him to drop his primary campaign against Specter because the Hatch Act prohibits someone from being a member of the executive branch and also being a candidate for office. Accepting that all to be true, I'm very hard pressed to see where the outrageous abuse of executive power is here. Do you really think Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter and everybody all the way back to LBJ has never struck a deal like this?

Ok, lets say they all did the same thing and got away with it? Does that make this violation any more ethical or even legal? I no longer ascribe to "but he did it" political philosophy, as all it does is justify horrible behavior by both parties.

It's not even illegal. Some people have tried to cite 18 USC 595 as a statute saying this is illegal bribery, but the case law just doesn't back them up and I have not seen any legal professional saying that it does.

Well, lets take a look at that law you cite:

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.

In my mind this is actually the one related law that you could argue Rahm didn't break, but there are two more that are much more appropriate that you did not cite.

1) Lets also look at 18 USC 211

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.

Even in this law, you may be absolutely correct, legally. Bill Clinton is not financed by the United States government, so therefore by having Rahm Emanuel use Bill Clinton as a go-between, they avoid breaking the letter of the law.

The spirit of the law is obliterated and ethics are out the window, but yes, the letter of the law has been observed. If that's good enough for, God bless you. I think Socrates just threw up in his grave a little.

But wait! There's MORE!

2) You are missing 18 USC 600 on that list

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.

How did Rahm NOT break this law?

But even all of this skirts the issue: The administration offered compensation so that they could affect the outcome of an election. Even in the unlikely event that this did not violate any laws, the severity of the offense to ethics and democracy in general cannot be stated. Its hard enough getting good candidates to run in a two party system... we don't need the White House fudging things even more.

All of this has just begun. It will be interesting to see what else is dug up on this case, and since Rahm is involved, there is probably a LOT of dirt to uncover.