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.
At the end of the day, there are obvious issues of indirectness, paid or unpaid positions, and alleged intent to manipulate a primary election.
Now, compare the above clip with the below from back in February of this year:
NationalReviewOnline has an excellent analysis of this clip in contrast with the day’s events.
Blogger Jason Tolbert was able to get up close and personal (yay, bloggers!) with former President Clinton for about 30 seconds to ask him directly about Sestak (with the otherwise expected non-response):
All the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee have joined Rep. Darrell Issa, ranking GOP member of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, in writing a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller over the Joe Sestak affair. The lawmakers urge Mueller to investigate “collusion” and possible obstruction of justice involving the White House, former President Bill Clinton, and Sestak’s brother, who was consulted during the drafting of the new White House report.
“Not surprisingly, the White House’s own report clears White House officials and former President Bill Clinton of wrongdoing,” the lawmakers write. “But assurances by the Obama White House that no laws were broken are like the Nixon White House promising it did nothing illegal in Watergate. Clearly an independent investigation is necessary to determine once and for all what really happened.” …
The letter is signed by Issa, along with Reps. Lamar Smith, James Sensenbrenner, Howard Coble, Elton Gallegly, Bob Goodlatte, Daniel Lungren, Steve King, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan, Jason Chaffetz, Tom Rooney and Gregg Harper.
Yet, it isn’t just the FBI that could have jurisdiction in this case. Dick Morris reports that Pennsylvania’s GOP Attorney General, Tom Corbett (who also happens to be running as the Republican nominee for Governor), could convene a grand jury that would ask questions such as who actually offered Sestak a job, how was the job offered, and did Obama know about it (excerpted):
Corbett’s jurisdiction stems from the concept of universal jurisdiction, now accepted virtually everywhere. The concept is simple. If someone on the New Jersey side of the Hudson River fires a pistol across the Hudson and the bullet from the pistol hits someone on the NY side, where did the crime take place? For about 600 years, the answer would have been in NY, where the harm was caused. Under the Reagan administration, and in response to urgings from the Meese Justice Department, the courts began to accept the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. This principle gives jurisdiction to law enforcement in the place wherever any act occurred that may have resulted in a crime. Thus, under our scenario above, the shooter could be prosecuted in NJ or NY.
Thus, if Cong. Sestak was in one of his homes, in PA or VA, when he received a telephone call offering him a job if he withdrew from the PA Senate primary against Sen. Arlen Specter, law enforcement authorities in PA and VA — both of which have Republican state Attorneys General — can subpoena Cong. Sestak to testify before a state grand jury and compel him to answer the who, what, when, and where that everyone has a right to know.
Methinks this is just getting started…
See the Impeachment category for general background on this story.
Email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com