Holder should appoint Special Prosecutor for Sestak Job Offer

CNN’s John King said to Axelrod that a job offer for Rep. Seststak “marches up into the gray area, perhaps into the red area of a felony. It is a felony to induce somebody by offering them a job.”  Sestak has alleged on multiple occasions this year that he was offered a job to refrain from running.  Gibbs has acknowledged that such conversations have taken place (“Lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak, and nothing inappropriate happened.”  and”Whatever conversations have been had are not problematic.”  On CBS’ “Face the Nation” Gibbs said, “I’m not going to get further into what the conversations were. People who looked into them assure me they weren’t inappropriate in any way.”).

The offer would appear to violate federal criminal laws, including 18 U.S.C. 600, which prohibits promising a government position “as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity” or “in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office.”  Likewise 18 USC 595 prohibits a federal official from interfering with the nomination or election for office and Section 18 USC 211 says that you can’t accept anything of value in return for hiring somebody in the Federal government.

Either the Democrat candidate for the Senate has lied multiple times or a felony has taken place.  One would think that the media would care to investigate and a Special Prosecutor should be appointed.

Axelrod replied to CNN’s King that “If such things happened they would constitute a serious breach of the law, and when the allegations were looked into there is no evidence of such a thing.”  And when Ted Bundy was asked to look in the killings of which he was accused, he found that there was no evidence that he had been involved.  Thankfully other people investigated Bundy.  We don’t give the people accused of a crime the responsibility and authority to investigate the allegations themselves.  Hence the Special Prosecutor.

For reference:

Sec. 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.

Leave a Reply