Melanie Sloan: Darrell Issa Playing Politics to 'Dirty Up' Sestak
C.R.E.W's Melanie Sloan joined Dylan Ratigan fill-in Eliot Spitzer to discuss whether there was anything illegal or improper about the White House offering Joe Sestak the advisers position. Sloan said there was nothing "even remotely close to the line" of the offer being illegal and that Darrell Issa is just trying to play politics and "dirty up" Joe Sestak so that Pat Toomey can get elected to the Senate in Pennsylvania.
Sloan: As you know as a former prosecutor Eliot, bribery is a tough case to prove. You need an official act in exchange for a thing of value. You just don't have that case here. Darrell Issa is really trying to make politics out of this all by screaming about it and calling it illegal, he thinks that suddenly it will become illegal, but that's just not the way the law works. This may look a little bad. This may have an appearance problem but there is simply nothing illegal here.
Spitzer agreed with Sloan that it's not illegal and didn't even think it looks bad. Issa joined the set immediately following Sloan and of course he still wants an investigation. Issa isn't going to be happy until he finds something to have impeachment hearings on. He tells Spitzer he just wants everything out in the open and that will be the end of it. Riiigghhhtt. Just like when you guys went after Bill Clinton, right Darrell?
He also tried to compare what happened here to Tom DeLay offering a fellow Republican help getting their son elected to office. Spitzer told him that's not the same since there was not the same quid pro quo there. That didn't seem to faze Issa. He's not going to stop with this until, as Melanie Sloan said, the media quits paying attention to him. With Fox around, that's not likely to happen any time soon.
Update: I'll add a bit of Digby's take on this.
Blame The Victim, Giggle Like Schoolgirls:
As far as this Sestak matter going away, I think MSNBC and the Politico is probably are probably good gauge of Village sentiment. Here's Eamon Javers on Andrea Mitchell's show.
...This reminds me of the Gore coverage. They justified their puerile attacks by saying he deserved what he got for being a stiff and boring poll who didn't parry the nonsense that the GOP freakshow was throwing at him and that disqualified him for the presidency. Hazing politicians on behalf of GOP operatives really should not be part of our political press coverage. It rewards the worst kind of politicians who have more "savvy" than integrity and perpetuates a political system that creates incentives to damage and destroy people on the basis of trivial nonsense, thus obscuring the very serious substance of their business. This really isn't a parlor game and politicians should not rise or fall based upon how they anticipate and deal with the GOPs mendacious machine, which is designed solely for the purpose of ruining their enemies.
She's talking about you Darrell Issa. Heaven forbid the Villagers can pass up an opportunity like this one to attack another Democratic President for nonsense. They shrugged their shoulders at the crimes of the Bush White House but they love this tabloid crap. I want to know when Darrell Issa is going to ask have Judd Gregg investigated as well. Go read the rest of Digby's post here.
and thought Melanie did a bang up job and was right on with her observations. To be honest, watching Schpritzer and Issane go at it made me feel a bit queasy. I don't care for either.
Issa was the weasel who helped orcastrate the recall of Governor Grey Davis and promoted the worst Governor in California History….Arnold Schwarzenegger!!!
Californians should vote Darrell Issa OUT!!!!
offered a REAL PAYING JOB...Second Sestak was not even a candidate yet..Stupid and pitiable!
I bet Specter is loving watching this. He maybe even pushing Issa on in the background. I wouldn't put anything past him.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
in the life of the media, ignoring the obvious facts and presenting 'opinion' as viable opposing view. at some point, some caving will take place by the dems.
Some stuff you can't make up!
In what dimension?
You have something to say, say it, link it.
Obviously we need to investigate president
ClintonObama. Clearly the crimes committed rise to impeachable offenses."I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
.
AND a democrat (or so I hear)
:)
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Democratic Party. The old progressive Democratic Party of FDR is dead and gone -- obsolete.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
We are talking two aging white retirees. One a former President.
One a former Rear Admiral. Rahm involved. There is a pattern of nudity in the past.
There must be a stained towel somewhere. Real progressives know this stain is part of the betrayal of hope and change we were promised.
"Folks, this is not your father's Republican Party."
Joe Biden
While I am a long-time fan of C&L, it never fails to amaze me the number of Obama apologists that frequent this website. Regardless of monetary consideration, Obama, Emanuel, and Clinton did commit a crime and a cover-up regarding this falderal with Joe Sestak. The excuse bandied about is that other prior administrations committed these same illegal actions without prosecution, and so now it is "legal" and should be granted a "pass".
But "looking forward and not back" is a familiar meme that also, apparently, applies to the continuation of illegal overseas wars and associated international war crimes, the blatant "wink and nod" given to undue influence from AIPAC and their ilk, the continued suppression of citizen rights under the guise of the War on Drugs, etcetera. The list goes on and on ...
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The decline of the USA and its slide into crony capitalist totalitarianism continues unabated, regardless of the political party nominally in charge. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Same Shite, Different Day.
I am so not impressed with either the Obama administration or the DLC-controlled Congress.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
Whooo! That's a good one!
it never fails to amaze me the small number of people who hamper the progressive cause by demonstating blatant supidity through which an entire movement can be so easily belittled.
But I must agree that where there is falderal there must be balderdash.
No looking forward or back even in the eleventh dimension when falderal hits the meme.
"Folks, this is not your father's Republican Party."
Joe Biden
And I thought that the Progressive or Populist or Liberal labels were only dragged out and attributed to Corporatist Obama when he was Candidate Obama. Is he running again already?
[ http://www.therealdifference.org/issues.html ]
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
David762, This is NOT illegal and just saying it is doesn't make it so. Maybe you don't LIKE how intraparty politics tend to be played, but there is NOTHING, literally NOTHING of substance to this charge. There isn't a lawyer or prosecutor in the country other than perhaps a Regent University Bush DOJ Bush appointee who would make this out to be a crime.
I challenge you, since you've made this very powerful statement to give us just one case, just one, of any elected official in the entire history of the United States being credibly investigated (as opposed to partisan witchhunt a la Whitewater), charged, tried, convicted or impeached based on a similar circumstance. Please, we're all waiting to hear about all the politicians who have been wisked off to jail for this "crime" of trying to influence primary elections. It's called "politics" nimrod. You may not like it, but it ain't a crime, and never has been, hence the zero number of prosecutions.
The laws pertaining to bribery of public officials cited by Issa and his minions simply do not apply to this situation. Or are you in favor of using the Obama administration as the first test case of applying these laws in this situation? Maybe you can give Issa a phone call and the two of you can brainstorm ideas of what "crimes" and "illegal activities" you can contrive to throw at Obama.
Stupid, stupid, stupid. What a frickin waste of money and attention when there are real problems to be solved. Issa is a POS. If anyone's a criminal, he is for wasting a single penny of taxpayer money on this partisan witchhunt. And the MSM needs to stop being the GOP stenographer. If this is truly a crime, there would be plenty of prosecutors and GOP lawyers stepping up to the plate to charge Obama, but they aren't and that's because it's so ridiculous.
It was my understanding that monetary considerations play no part in the criminal statutes in this regard. If you can prove otherwise, I would be happy to retract my statement. But I don't want to hear that other politicians at other times from other political parties have done so in the past, and therefore it should be perfectly legal now.
That is the excuse being used to not only not prosecute the Bush administration for unlawful foreign wars and subsequent war crimes, but to continue those very same policies. I have not differentiated between crimes committed by the Bush (43) administration and the continuation of those same crimes by the Obama administration.
I, for one, am not an apologist for either administration's wrong-doing. Why are you?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
bringing up Bush etc. is off topic.
The issue is whether the Obama administration broke any laws by offering Sestak a position. And the answer is NO. Period. Your interpretation of the law is unreasonable. Period. I would say that no matter what politician were involved. If Bush offered a position to someone in his party as an incentive not to run in a GOP primary, I WOULD NOT GIVE A SHIT, and nobody could ever accuse me of being a Bush apologist. How on earth could you justify interpreting a law in such a way so as to make President Obama the first person in the history of the United States to be investigated or charged or impeached for what he did, which is completely commonplace in party politics? Doesn't that seem wrong to you? Doesn't that seem like folks like Issa are contriving a charge against him for partisan purposes?
There is no logic to your analysis of this situation or your interpretation of the law. Criminal laws are not meant to be read so expansively. One must look to the intent of the legislators who enacted the law, and the intention of anti bribery laws are pretty clear. They are not meant to criminalize non criminal party politics.
Yes, you do have to hear about other politicians and the past because if this were truly a criminal offense there would have been other prosecutions in the past. There are NONE because prosecutors have never interpreted the law this way. Look up the term "ex post facto." I would argue that enlarging a criminal statute in ways that were not originally intended and in ways that are unexpected in order to target one person is unconstitutional, on many grounds.
First, both criminal and civil law are subject to interpretation. That interpretation is defined by actual test cases, so your entire argument regarding "Criminal laws are not meant to be read so expansively" is in direct contradiction to other argument "... if this were truly a criminal offense there would have been other prosecutions in the past." Only prior cases that are considered similar are used to argue the next similar case -- vastly different cases require new judicial determinations, or legislative refinement. And I will stand by my contention that the criminal statute does not specifically include monetary consideration.
So, just because the type of cases that have already been tried for a specific criminal code do not include the parameters that I have laid out, you have concluded that you fully comprehend the original legislators intent? Even though it would have been a simple matter for those legislators (lawyers all, generally) to include such language as to specify monetary consideration? If anyone is twisting logic into a pretzel, it is you.
Secondly, it was you who, in bringing up prosecutorial history, left an opening that begged a response applicable to both Bush (43) and Obama criminal behavior regarding war crimes. That is not especially off-topic, considering both criminal behavior and prosecutorial discretion as roots. To use (and abuse) your argument, criminal law regarding war crimes are no longer applicable to USA elected officials at any level of government because no one has ever been prosecuted? I am pretty certain that international judicial bodies and treaty law might state otherwise.
(And please note that I have not resorted to any attacks of a personal nature, unlike you.)
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
So I am quite confident in my replies.
To address your other points, in no particular order:
1. Saying someone is wrong is not a "personal attack."
This isn't even a close call. There is no credible person who has a background of prosecuting public anti-corruption cases calling for the pursuit of this matter. And when I say credible, I by definition exclude knee jerk Obama haters, Issa, or GOP partisan hacks.
2. The issue on the table is this specific matter, not war crimes. I do not care to go into Bush's war crimes or Obama's war crimes. It is NOT on topic. I am not interested of analyzing this in terms of an analogy because that obscures the hard, cold truth of the facts and the law of this specific situation.
3. The intent of anti-bribery statutes are clearly not intended to cover this sort of activity. That doesn't even require research, but knock yourself out and feel free to post anything you come up with in the recorded comments or legislative history or any case law that would support your point of view. Bribery is a pretty well known crime that everyone pretty much understands the same way, and this doesn't even come close. Your interpretation would open every political appointment up to prosecutorial scrutiny, which would be a ridiculous waste of resources.
4. Criminal statutes are strictly construed exactly because interpreting them too broadly would lead to prosecuting people for things they didn't even know were crimes. That's something every lawyer learns in first year. Just google "criminal law strict construction," and you'll see that I'm not making this up.
5. The concept of ex post facto, which is enshrined in our constitution, prohibits the passage of criminal laws that have retroactive effect. This has been interpreted by the SCOTUS to include expanding existing statutes in ways that no reasonable person would anticipate. Clearly the exact same situation has occurred countless times in the past, therefore the fact that not a single person has ever been prosecuted in the entire history of our country for this "crime" means that prosecutors have never deemed this to be a crime and accordingly, deeming it to be one just for this case would be constitutionally untenable. This is not just a lapse of "prosecutorial discretion." Perjury rarely gets prosecuted (We learned that during the Clinton Impeachment proceedings), but it has been prosecuted. That's a matter of prosecutorial discretion.
Edited to correct this: I think you were right in that I did make some personal attacks by name calling. I apologize for that. You are right that there is no need for name calling. It was heat of the moment, and I didn't even recall what I had posted. Sorry.
1a) The derisive term "nimrod" IS a "personal attack".
1b) I am neither a knee jerk Obama hater, nor Issa, nor a GOP partisan hack. I voted for Obama in 2008, shared the "hope and change" message, and still wish his administration well, in spite of the dramatic right-ward shift in policies, obfuscation instead of promised open government, and question his choices of close advisors.
2) Okay, we'll stick to specifics.
3a) If bribery does not in any fashion include inducements to positions of elevated stature regardless of monetary accommodations, then why would the original legislators not more carefully and narrowly define applicable conditions?
3b) Political appointments made by the head of the Party, or by a governing board, is quite a bit different than a high rank within one branch of government making political decisions within another branch of government.
3c) Looked at another way, too vast a collection of political power into too few hands is an invitation to abuse of that power and should fall under judicial / prosecutorial oversight. A case in point might be the Secretary of a given State being assigned to head that State's party re-election campaign, as was the case in Ohio in 2004.
4) In the case of bribery statutes not being limited to matters of monetary considerations, it would appear that the statute was too broadly written rather than too narrowly, leaving tremendous "wiggle room" for mischief. Those statutes could bear some additional legislative refinement, IMHO.
5a) It would seem that "ex post facto" would more appropriately be characterized by more narrowly defined statutes, which would eliminate the possibility of judicial reinterpretation. The legislature writes laws, but it is the courts, up to and including SCOTUS, that define the parameters of those laws. Lawyers and judges redefine and clarify laws all the time, sometimes to the surprise of legislators.
5b) The executive branch, OTOH, has no business using signing letters to redefine the manner (or whether) said laws will be enforced, contrary to either the legislature or courts. Such actions are unconstitutional, as an executive committee of the ABA concluded regarding Bush (43) signing letters. That issue should have been pursued further.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
Is a concern troll who constantly bashes anything that has happened under this admin.
Just like Abbywood (and they're so similar it seems to be a sockpuppet) he pretends to be a progressive, but when you actually read what he writes, it's exactly the same as wrongwing talking points.
What a coincidence.
He also has the wrongwing defect of ignoring any facts, and continuing to shift the goal posts and refusing to learn when facts plainly contradict his POV.
I'm just guessing, but there are repubes that pay for these easily dis-proven RNC talking points. Maybe he and Abbywood make money from constantly denying reality.
After all, we all know facts have a liberal bias.
I hope that you and all the other Obama apologists are perfectly happy with the strongly Corporatist tilt of this administration. When Obama and Rahm have driven all the liberal, progressive, leftist, and independent grassroots supporters of the Democratic Party out, don't be surprised that at the end of Obama's single term as POTUS he will be described as the best thing to happen to rehabilitate Bush (43) and his miserable record of governance.
I have been an Independent supporter of the Democratic Party for nearly four decades. The hope and change that I voted for in the personage of Obama will not occur again. I will not drink that cup of Kool-Aid again. The New (NeoLiberal) Democratic Party has finally driven me off the fence regarding party affiliation -- I am going Green, yes the Green Party.
Since you really truly know that facts have a liberal bias, I will leave you with the following appraisal of the current Democratic Party: [ http://www.therealdifference.org/issues.html ]. Somehow, some day even you may actually face reality, but I doubt it.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
Next time, show work.
Keep re-arranging those deck chairs on the USS Obama, while that iceberg is being reduced to frozen daiquiris ... put a message in a bottle if you can and let me know how those mid-terms work out for you.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
your reply has no substance, and less knowledge.
Hopefully this will backfire on the Republicans and actually help Sestak get elected. After all, he TURNED DOWN the offer and went on to beat the White House's favored candidate. He should play up the fact that he didn't want to play the political game and continue to campaign as the political outsider. That should only help him get more votes and beat Toomey.
"Hopefully this will backfire on the Republicans"
It would be poetic justice.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
His win will be the icing on the cake.
Especially Issa. He has a long record of lying yet dumbasses keep re-electing the idiot. I noticed that outing a CIA agent which is treason never bothered him at all.
Republicans are liars and simply cannot be trusted.
Contrary to those who believe people are "basically good", I believe they are basically flawed, power hungry, controlling, greedy, manipulative freakazoids intent on destruction, still only a stone's throw away from our primate ancestors. That's no more apparent than in the political arena.
If people weren't basically good we couldn't have survived this long. See Evolution, et al.
He just wants a job at Fox News.
Where speaking truth to power IS bipartisan ...
[ http://blog.norml.org/2010/05/28/norml-deputy... ]
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
I'm still not getting this. Sestak was offered a non-paying gig in Washington to keep him from running against Specter; He refused and continued with his (ultimately) successful campaign. What crime was committed? Where's the bribery? All this is was a bone-headed play by Rahm Emmanuel to clear the way for Specter. It didn't work. Politics as usual in Washington? Yes. Crime? Hardly. I guess for the GOP, this is the new Whitewater. I know Rick Sanchez at the Clown News Network has been beating this dead horse for all it's worth, so don't expect it to go away. Memo to Obama: The Republicans are not interested in working with you; they are not interested in governing this nation. They are fully dedicated to spending their time discrediting you. This is their idea of "bipartisanship" and "reaching across the aisle". Now will you finally get a fucking clue?
If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.
George Carlin
The current political paradigm is thus: the NeoLiberal Democratic Party and the NeoCon Republican Party are merely two wings of the very same Crony Capitalist Party.
The squabbling between the wings is little more than sibling rivalry in contest for the attentions (or cash equivalents) of/from Daddy Warbucks. Obama's oft ill-considered bipartisanship is like the wrong petulant child's feigned agreeability when threatened by a time-out in the corner.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
Gee, you are so smart. Thanks for the nickel.
If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.
George Carlin
But don't expect a nickel every time. I'm neither a Roosevelt nor a Daddy Warbucks, so I'm not made of money. But refresh here on C&L, and have another cookie ...
;^)
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
only to smack u across the face. The US electorate voted Obama in. The GOP is content to punish the whole country for that.
of the Senate race. Their boy was Norm Coleman. Basically, it was "We'll help you get the governorship of Minnesota if you'll step aside and let us have Norm."
Is there a difference here?
"Trust no one, Mr. Mulder." - Well-Manicured Man
n/t
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
in a wagon rut. He is the sleaze that corrupts the Washington process. He makes green slime look delicious. This pathetic old man is such a loser. Unfortunately he is taking out his personal anger and extracting his personal revenge from the process that is meant to do good for Americans.
Woody McBreairty
Crazy from top to bottom!
You'd think by now that they'd learn to shut up and know what they're talking about before they go all out and attack someone for things they themselves are guilty of.
nope.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
They claim they make their own reality. While you are looking at that reality they are making a new one!
I tell you these GOPers are Nuts!
is about as greasy and slippery and his political past is FAR from virginal. He's a glory-whore and he wants the House as log-jammed as the Senate.
Now if the White Supremacist, Racist, NAZI, Anti American Terrorist SUPPORTING party will allow a COMPLETE and unhampered investigation into the Supreme Court Appointed War Crimminal and the Spineless,Gutless American TRAITOR cheney, I agree 100%.
You know these Anti American Nazi Racist aren't going to let that happen.
I am sorry, but I must predict that most Sestak fans will see their expectations come to naught. He will pay lip service to refusing the advances of the plutocrats and K Street for just so long as it takes to figure out what he has to do to get re-elected and suck on the national teet while stuffing his campaign coffers with enough money that when he is voted out by a disillusioned electorate, he will take the booty with him. If those guys are so altruistic, why are they so rich?
"Respect for the rights of others is peace." --Benito Juarez
Yes, you are right about the nimrod remark. Please refer to apology above.
You failed to address the specific points I made about strict construction and its relationship to ex post facto, going off on some tangent about separation of powers etc. This really is a very simple matter, and you are the one obsfucating it. You cannot infer legislative intent to include a circumstance from the absence of an exemption. This is so frickin' obvious nobody thought it needed an exemption.
What I said is that nobody with a background in anticorruption cases has stepped forward to go on record that this is a crime, because nobody wants their professional integrity to be questioned, as it would be if you supported bringing trumped up charges against an elected official. I imagine if you had a background in prosecuting federal anti corruption cases you would have led with that credential, so I wasn't calling you specifically an Obama hater or GOPer.
If you don't like intra party political manuevering, then so be it, but you are still wrong that this constitutes a crime of any kind. Please refer to story up above which covers the discussion between a law professor and a Faux News "reporter." This story corroborates my main point which is that THIS IS NOT A CRIME.
IANAL, nor have I played one on TV or in the movies.
I will accept your premise that what happened between the Obama White House, Clinton, and Sestak was not so much a crime as "internal party political maneuvering", and retract my original contention.
And I have seen quite enough of judicial malfeasance in bringing trumped up charges against an elected official, having remembered the Clinton years, including that defining moment arguing over what the definition of "is" is. I may well have let my dissatisfaction with the right-ward tilt of Obama's policy decisions color my assessment of this "bump in the road". Mea culpa.
I would like to point out that in having predominantly lawyers as legislators, the supposition is that they would be more careful to define those laws that they create -- and in the case of bribery, to include the provision of monetary consideration.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
which was not intended to be off-handed.
And thank you for actually debating this in a civilized way and being generous enough to admit that you have changed your point of view.
I agree that legislation is often poorly written and unclear. Many times I have read statutes and wondered, well, what do they mean by that or why isn't this addressed. Just happened this week actually on one of my files.
Sometimes I read a statute and think...it is hard to believe that whoever wrote this legislation practices law because if he did practice, he would have known that this or that issue comes up on a regular basis...so why doesn't the statute cover it? This problem is endemic to all legislation. It does leave stuff out. Important stuff. As a law hits the real world, its defects become apparent, and lawyers, through bar association committees give feedback and recommendations on revisions. Laws are constantly being tinkered with and refined. It is a process. It could very well be that a bill will be introduced to clarify this antibribery/anticorruption law by adding a specific exemption. Actually, I think that would be a splendid idea, especially if it would shut down this impeachment nonsense.
It is not a particularly efficient process and I concede without hesitation that lawyers are not particularly great at writing clearly understandable laws, although they certainly should be.
Maybe it's a lack of discipline, because you have to admit, it must be pretty boring to sit there and think through everything and write it all up.
Isaa get back to selling auto-alarms,what a loser.
This wee tempest in a teapot (pun intended) is the corporatists' red herring du jour. From which relevant issue do they want to deflect our attention? How about the massive ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico?
BTW, it's icing on the cake that the corporatists can use this smelly herring to cast aspersions on Obama's administration. Obama and his merry men (and women)are just not as optimal for the vile Corporate Megalomaniacs as are the fearful, resentful Republicans, who--with not a shred of irony--fancy themselves part of the 'inner circle.'
All this being said, I am disappointed in the response thus far to the Gulf catastrophe. No need to point fingers, or play the blame and shame game, to recognize that BP and/or government officials have not responded optimally to initiate and coordinate clean-up and intervention efforts. Lots of energy and time has been and continues to be wasted pointing said fingers and playing the blame and shame game. How puerile. How disappointing.
How frustrating that so many 'adults' are scurrying around, ducking personal responsibility, playing partisan politics, and wasting valuable time and resources. We could get so much more done if we rolled up our sleeves and worked together.
Comments are closed on this entry