Can we please stop accusing President Obama of bribery, at least without any evidence?

[democrattotheend]

I posted this in General Discussion because it was about the 2008 primaries, not the 2016 primaries, but I was told to repost it here.

I have repeatedly seen people here repeat the claim, without anything to back it up, that the president offered Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State position prior to her endorsement as a quid pro quo.

As someone pointed out in another thread, to have done so would have been illegal:

18 U.S. Code § 599 - Promise of appointment by candidate

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

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.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 721; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), (L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)



Hence, this meme that is casually repeated here with no evidence is actually a very serious accusation against a president who has given us no reason to believe he considers himself above the law. Not only has nobody ever been able to provide a link when I have asked for it, but it is clear from the articles that were published at the time of the appointment that her nomination was extensively negotiated after the election.

In fact, this article from November 2008 discusses her initial reluctance to take the position, citing concerns about access, personnel, and other issues: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/politics/22obama.html. I can't find the article, but I remember also reading that she went through a period after losing the nomination where she just wanted to be done with politics and spend time with Chelsea.

If you recall, Hillary made a trip to Chicago in late 2008 that she initially insisted was for personal reasons, but turned out to be to meet with Obama about the SOS position. If her nomination was something they had already agreed on 6 months earlier, why the secret negotiations in Chicago?

Given that it would have been a crime for Obama to use the Secretary of State position to get Hillary on board with his campaign, if there were any indication whatsoever that that had happened, wouldn't the Republicans have pounced on it?

[JoePhilly]

1. There is a segment of Bernie supporters who spent the last 7+ years trashing Obama.

There's no way they would not jump at the chance to trash Obama and Hillary at the same time.

[guillaumeb]

2. Some people at DU are critical of President Obama.

When does critical become "trashing" and is there no allowance for political differences?

I have criticized the President's support for the TPP. I feel the TPP is a gift to big business that will do as much damage as NAFTA, and GATT, and every other trade deal.

I have criticized the President's non-support for working people and unions. Is that trashing, or disagreement on principles?

[Hortensis]

13. Somewhere BEFORE he and she are accused of

extremely illegal and unethical behavior, and what would be incredibly stupid behavior even for the idiots who love to hate them, much less two extremely intelligent people. Waaay before.

[democrattotheend]

3. Most Bernie supporters support the president

Many of us would vote for him again if we could. I doubt there are more Obama bashers among Bernie supporters than Hillary supporters. Many 2008 Hillary supporters I know have continued to gripe about Obama throughout his presidency. Many of the Bernie volunteers I worked with wanted to repeal the 22nd amendment.

Moreso than any Bernie supporters, Republicans would have jumped at the chance to bash both Obama and Hillary 8 years ago if there were even a whiff of evidence of a quid pro quo. Don't you think they would have blocked her nomination, if not called for impeachment if there were anything to this story?

[JoePhilly]

7. There is a fairly large group of Bernie supporters on DU who disagree with you.

Watched it myself for the last 7 years.

Its also the same DU folks who thought a primary challenge against Obama in 2012 was absolutely necessary.

[HooptieWagon]

4. Obviously Obama didn't offer the SoS position to Clinton based....

...upon her ability to manage email.

[democrattotheend]

5. I'm sure he didn't offer it to Kerry based on his e-mail management ability either

That's usually not the first thing a president considers when choosing the country's top diplomat.

[leveymg]

6. You're raising a red-herring. It's a dead-letter law, never applied to a national political figure

And, it certainly won't be in this case. Nobody claims it will.

An alleged deal between Obama and Hillary, whereby HRC released her delegates in June 2008 soon after they met in her Georgetown home -- and what appears to have been leverage used by Clinton to obtain appointment as SOS -- has been mentioned in the context of the current investigation, and his attitudes toward prosecuting her. They both deny such a deal was ever made, but given the fact that Sec. 599 is still on the books, that is understandable.

Why do you continue to repeatedly post this?

[democrattotheend]

8. I reposted it here because it was locked in GD with instructions to repost in GDP

I don't see why, since it is more about the 2008 primaries than 2016.

[leveymg]

9. What are you trying to accomplish? Do you think others shouldn't discuss how Hillary became SOS?

I don't think anyone here seriously suggests that there was any wrongdoing by Obama in appointing her. I do believe, however, that there is circumstantial evidence to support the contention that she used her delegates as leverage to extract appointment. Nobody really cares about the Sec. 599 part of this, but it does explain why the two wouldn't be completely candid in their public accounts of how she came to be Secretary of State.

I don't see much evidence that the two were ever particularly close, and haven't seen a good alternative reason raised for why she was appointed over a number of Obama supporters who were at least as qualified, and had earned the job.

[Fumesucker]

10. There's two main camps of thought on DU

One is that DU is a place for left leaning people to discuss politics the other camp thinks of DU as essentially an online Democratic party pep rally.

How you see what's going on here on DU depends a lot on your perspective.

[democrattotheend]

11. I am all for fair criticism of Democratic politicians, including the president

But I am not for throwing around an allegation of corruption that has absolutely no evidence as if it were an accepted truth.

[Fumesucker]

12. The other alternative is that Obama thought Clinton the best person for the job

That doesn't really make Obama look any better at least from my perspective, more honest but less intelligent.

She was fooled by Dubya and he wasn't and yet he still wanted her for his SoS over everyone else in the nation.

[democrattotheend]

14. In some ways she was

She was well known and had a lot of good will and gravitas all over the world. Restoring America's image in the world after 8 years of Bush was one of his top goals and I think she was a good choice in that respect. And it is well known that he wanted people in his cabinet who had different views than he did so he could hear all sides.

I would be that he was also motivated in part by wanting to have her report to him instead of being a potential thorn in his side in the Senate, but that is very different from making a deal six months prior to the election to give her the job.