Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (366404)	5/28/2010 9:51:07 AM
From: SirWalterRalegh	Respond to of 793860

<< However, in the case of Sestak, pundits seem agree it's against the law. Hence my confusion, why the dual standard?>> In the Sestak case it is a bribe. If you don't run I'll offer you a guvment job. In the other case it appears to be just an offer of a guvment job.

To: greenspirit who wrote (366404)	5/28/2010 10:11:02 AM
From: PJr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793860

It might hinge on the ability/authority to fulfill the agreement/offer. In the case of Sestak, the offer is deliverable since the person offering it presumably was in the position to make it happen immediately and both parties knew that to be true. In the case of Hillary, Obama was not in a position to deliver immediately since delivery was contingent upon his election. Neither "knew" at the time that the offer could ever be consummated. In other words Sestak was given a job offer, and Hillary was given only a promise of one subject to events out of Obama's control at the time of the offer. I'm not an attorney so I'm just speculating ..... Anyone know for sure the fine line of difference? Pat