Non-issue. Overzealous staffing.

DO IT MITTENS.

Lando Lincoln: Newt Gingrich said he'd like to to see John Bolton as his secretary of State.

I don't know how much clearer he can get about not being a serious candidate.

"Seriously guys, I'm just here for the book sales."

Well, he could have said Michael Bolton.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Newt already went there.

Link (new window)

Yeah, but Newt just LOVES this country SO MUCH that he can't let things like marital vows laws get in the way.

Newt Gingrich said he'd like to to see John Bolton as his secretary of State.

Wow. Just...just, wow.

A Dark Evil Omen: Lando Lincoln: Newt Gingrich said he'd like to to see John Bolton as his secretary of State.

I don't know how much clearer he can get about not being a serious candidate.

"Seriously guys, I'm just here for the book sales."

Well, he could have said Michael Bolton.

Depending on which Michael Bolton, it would be a step up.

/nowait, even the no-talent assclown would be better than 'stache Bolton.

Federal government is always hosing the common man.

ksdanj: John Bolton for Secretary of State?

That would be horrifyingly awesome!

Not that I'm a Romney or Bolton fan, but it would be incredible to see that scenario play out...

WW3?

Interesting. Anyone know why this law exists?

Non-story.

MrEricSir: Interesting. Anyone know why this law exists?

Because you're basically offering political appointments as a reward for electing you. It's a form of corruption. Only an idiot thinks it doesn't happen behind closed doors but that's the reason.

MrEricSir: Interesting. Anyone know why this law exists?

Probably so a candidate can't give a cabinet post to friends as a reward for voting him in?

ksdanj: Virulency: ksdanj: John Bolton for Secretary of State?

That would be horrifyingly awesome!

Not that I'm a Romney or Bolton fan, but it would be incredible to see that scenario play out...

WW3?

... and possibly 4 and 5.

WW4 would use sticks and bones left over from WW3.

WW5 would use mud, if we were lucky. And if Bolton ever made it to a place of power, I'd say that would be when our luck runs out.

Meh, that sounds like an unconstitutional breach of freedom of speech. Saying "I'll nominate so and so to Secretary of the such and such if elected" is protected by the first amendment, IMHO.

I think I like this one, better:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 29 > § 597
§ 597. EXPENDITURES TO INFLUENCE VOTING

Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and
Whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote-
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.

Every democrat would be in jail if this were enforced.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Newt already went there.

Link (new window)

But isn't Newt a historian that gets paid millions for his historian input? Everyone else must be wrong.

Bolton would be like putting farking Stalin in there. Farking evil walrus-looking fark.

enry: ksdanj: Virulency: ksdanj: John Bolton for Secretary of State?

That would be horrifyingly awesome!

Not that I'm a Romney or Bolton fan, but it would be incredible to see that scenario play out...

WW3?

... and possibly 4 and 5.

WW4 would use sticks and bones left over from WW3.

WW5 would use mud, if we were lucky. And if Bolton ever made it to a place of power, I'd say that would be when our luck runs out.

At least one of those wars would be fought with the power of mustaches.

Lunchlady: Because you're basically offering political appointments as a reward for electing you. It's a form of corruption. Only an idiot thinks it doesn't happen behind closed doors but that's the reason.

heinekenftw: Probably so a candidate can't give a cabinet post to friends as a reward for voting him in?

Sure, that makes sense. But was there some historical context where this happened and the law was made in response to that? (I.e. Andrew Jackson giving cabinet positions to his drunk as partying friends, that sorta thing?)

Modguy: Geotpf: Meh, that sounds like an unconstitutional breach of freedom of speech. Saying "I'll nominate so and so to Secretary of the such and such if elected" is protected by the first amendment, IMHO.

So is yelling fire in a theatre, or "I have this thing. It's farking golden."

Well, outright selling a position (which is what I think this law is supposed to outlaw) should be against the law. But saying, "Elect me and I'll nominate good people like Mr. A and Mrs. B." is, IMHO, constitutionally protected speech.

mc6809e: I think I like this one, better:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 29 > § 597
§ 597. EXPENDITURES TO INFLUENCE VOTING

Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and
Whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote-
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.

Every democrat would be in jail if this were enforced.

[Citation needed]

Seems no different than saying "If you elect me, I'll authorize a $1000 tax rebate for all households" to me

mc6809e: Every democrat would be in jail if this were enforced.

Know how I know you're part of the problem?

Lost Thought 00: Seems no different than saying "If you elect me, I'll authorize a $1000 tax rebate for all households" to me

This is exactly what I was coming here to say. It's illegal to promise someone a job before being elected, but it's perfectly cromulent to promise tax breaks, handouts, and no-bid contracts for your cronies.

That article displays the keen legal insight that I've come to expect from USA Today.

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 29, Section 599:
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.

I'm not sure that the law is being interpreted as intended, though it is vague enough that a candidate wouldn't be able to do it regardless.

The way I read it, the law states you can't bribe someone with a job while you're a candidate. So if you're already the Republican nominee for president, saying you're going to nominate another Republican who already pledged support for you wouldn't be a problem. Promising someone a cabinet position in return for a million dollar donation to your campaign? That'd be a problem.

Like I said, though, the law is so vague that a candidate really can't throw out any names at all.

chimp_ninja: Ask about a position she probably doesn't even know formally has Cabinet rank, like the US Ambassador to the United Nations.

Better yet, ask her about positions that sound official but aren't actually anything.

Miss Bachmann, who would you have as Director of Sensual Relations?

The intent requirement makes this virtually impossible to prove. Unless there's a wiretap, as in the case of a recently-sentenced-to-14-years former Illinois governor I could name.

mc6809e: I think I like this one, better:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 29 > § 597
§ 597. EXPENDITURES TO INFLUENCE VOTING

Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and
Whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote-
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.

Every democrat would be in jail if this were enforced.

[Citation N....nah, you know what, this obvious of a troll post doesn't deserve a response. Instead, I will use this time to hum the Hawaii Five-O theme song in my head.

/Hmmm hmmm hmmm hmmm hmmmmmmm hmmmmmmm hmmm hmmm hmmm hmmm hmmmmmmmmm

jepzilla: That article displays the keen legal insight that I've come to expect from USA Today.

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 29, Section 599:
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.

Would that not count? The legalese there doesn't seem to depend on who's support the candidate is looking to garner. So if a reporter from Stormfront asks you who would be your AG, and you say, "Motherfarkin' zombie Hitler!" is that not an attempt to procure support for your candidacy? Not from zombie Hitler, but from the "readers" of that website.

Geotpf: Modguy: Geotpf: Meh, that sounds like an unconstitutional breach of freedom of speech. Saying "I'll nominate so and so to Secretary of the such and such if elected" is protected by the first amendment, IMHO.

So is yelling fire in a theatre, or "I have this thing. It's farking golden."

Well, outright selling a position (which is what I think this law is supposed to outlaw) should be against the law. But saying, "Elect me and I'll nominate good people like Mr. A and Mrs. B." is, IMHO, constitutionally protected speech.

Well you would be wrong.

ksdanj: JohnRoose Bolton for Secretary of StateWarden of the North?

That would be horrifyingly awesome!

FTFWesteros

Corvus: Dusk-You-n-Me: Newt already went there.

Link (new window)

But isn't Newt a historian that gets paid millions for his historian input? Everyone else must be wrong.

he's a historian who gets paid for his histrionics.

FTFA:

"The answer is yes," Romney said in response to a question on whether he would consider nominating someone such as former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani to be his attorney general so that individual could challenge Attorney General Eric Holder.

So, Giuliani and Holder could debate the question whether Romney should be indicted?

ksdanj: Virulency: ksdanj: John Bolton for Secretary of State?

That would be horrifyingly awesome!

Not that I'm a Romney or Bolton fan, but it would be incredible to see that scenario play out...

WW3?

... and possibly 4 and 5.

Secretary of State Bolton would be a bit like Ambassador Prince Philip.

"You motherfarkers are stirring up all the shiat in the world, and why? Because you hate freedom? Your shiat-for-brains leadership has utterly failed to do its basic duty and create a laissez-faire system so devoid of rules and protections that a 5-year-old can drive a Mack-truck hauling the ISS through the loopholes. You goddamn worthless bastard socialist scum, I can't believe they let you have a country. Buncha whiny self-entitled pricks, the lot of you. If you won't do it our way, we don't need you."

"Wait, why has America's standing dropped?"

MrEricSir: Lunchlady: Because you're basically offering political appointments as a reward for electing you. It's a form of corruption. Only an idiot thinks it doesn't happen behind closed doors but that's the reason.

heinekenftw: Probably so a candidate can't give a cabinet post to friends as a reward for voting him in?

Sure, that makes sense. But was there some historical context where this happened and the law was made in response to that? (I.e. Andrew Jackson giving cabinet positions to his drunk as partying friends, that sorta thing?)

It seems like the current law was actually passed in January of this year, I can't say what prompted the new law but you can look at every administration for instances when friends were rewarded for their endorsement. In the 1800's when tariffs were a large percentage of the federal governments income customs houses used to be a great way to reward people. I believe Grant and Teddy Roosevelt both had minor scandals involving customs appointees, I'm sure there were more.

qorkfiend: ksdanj: JohnRoose Bolton for Secretary of StateWarden of the North?

That would be horrifyingly awesome!

FTFWesteros

fark the Boltons.

Sew Eddark Stark's head back on his shoulders and find him a red priest.