Originally posted by Mairuzu
Newt to promise palin a presidential appointment.Commits Felony.
/facepalm
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Newt to promise palin a presidential appointment.Commits Felony.
/facepalm
Does that really count? He isn't President yet and he can only make her part of the administration if he wins.
Obviously if this is taken seriously (which I doubt, because a law against political favors is more doomed than a nonagression pact with Hitler) he'll just pay the fine rather than go to prison.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 29 > § 599
§ 599. Promise of appointment by candidate
Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Does that really count? He isn't President yet and he can only make her part of the administration if he wins.Obviously if this is taken seriously (which I doubt, because a law against political favors is more doomed than a nonagression pact with Hitler) he'll just pay the fine rather than go to prison.
Of course nothing is going to happen, he's white, rich, politically connected, he could beat someone to death and walk free. But he broke the law, even if he would try to weasel out of it like a true politician.
Lets be honest, just a couple days ago he most definitely co-ordinated with his super-pac, also illegal.
No it is not. And this is a problem we have in society, to be honest- the spreading of this kind of ignorance. People are so keen to try and 'catch out' those they see as the enemy that they will bend any truth to try and portray them as guilty and then cry off about corruption or unfair privilege as being the only reason they were not held accountable, when the simple fact is that they did nothing wrong in the first place.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yup, saddening just like that.It very much is NOT the law and it is remarkably silly that a bunch of excitable people are thinking it is. Your interpretation of that statute is useless. People are allowed to say who they intend to appoint.
The way I understood it is that he seems to try to get tea party voters by embracing one of their idols and promising a spot for her if he's elected (as well as perhaps getting her to fully endorse him).
To be honest I don't understand why that is wrong, but that seems to be what that paragraph is talking about. Besides having read and heard that from multiple commentators, that's also how I'd interpret that law.
Do you think it just doesn't apply? What circumstances do you think it would apply in?
It's most definitely a problem and one I see going on very regularly. People will happily argue from a position of ignorance because it fits their anti-establishment position. I have no idea what your question has to do with anything at all; you are the one trying to interpret a law designed to stop people using Federal money for patronage as meaning "You are not allowed to say who you would appoint", which is a clear free speech violation.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The way I understood it is that he seems to try to get tea party voters by embracing one of their idols and promising a spot for her if he's elected (as well as perhaps getting her to fully endorse him).To be honest I don't understand why that is wrong, but that seems to be what that paragraph is talking about. Besides having read and heard that from multiple commentators, that's also how I'd interpret that law.
Do you think it just doesn't apply? What circumstances do you think it would apply in?
No, that's incorrect; the law has nothing at all to do with getting support from the voters. All of those laws are designed to stop you getting people to vote for you by offering them a specific job with federal money. They are designed to stop patronage and trying to apply them here is absurd.
I get Ush's point, and from certain interpretations of what that says Newt really isn't violating the law as it doesn't look like he was making deals with Palin to gain political support.
However, I think the larger point is that such nuance and protection is really only something offered to the elites in society, as there are instances of far more egregious applications of the law against the general population than it would be to hold Newt in violation of this statute.
I honestly think Sym said it best in terms of the realpolitik here:
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
a law against political favors is more doomed than a nonagression pact with Hitler
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...a law against political favors is more doomed than a nonagression pact with Hitler...
😆
Nice. Somewhere, a history professor is proud.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 29 > § 599
§ 599. Promise of appointment by [b]candidateWhoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both [/B]
Man, that's fairly definitive. It looks like it is saying, "don't promise spots in your potential or future administration when running for public office."
I don't understand the argument.
Basically...this:
Did Gingrich really break the law? If Usgarak had not posted, I would have said, "well, yeah, he clearly did."
Is there a political pundit or lawyer that has addressed this? I see Ushgarak's point but I also see yours.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, that's incorrect; the law has nothing at all to do with getting support from the voters. All of those laws are designed to stop you getting people to vote for you by offering them a specific job with federal money. They are designed to stop patronage and trying to apply them here is absurd.
Though presumably Palin will vote for him.
I'm with dadude the wording of the law doesn't seem to leave any room for political appointments. Is there legal precedent for the use of USC 18 29? Between 597, 599, 600, and 602 all political "wooing" would almost have to be illegal. Obviously this can't be the case (or every candidate would be arrested) but I don't really see the specific reason that it isn't.