Fact Checking The Sunday Shows - May 30, 2010

Fox News Sunday

CLAIM: Rep. Issa Repeatedly Called The Sestak Job Offer "A Crime"- Despite Expert Opinion To The Contrary.

REP. DARRELL ISSA: If you offer a job or a position, 18 USC 600 clearly says, that is a crime. So is it a crime? Yes. It's a crime because they've admitted that they offered this position-- a position, by the way, that was created under President Clinton and he could not accept. So that begs the real question, Chris, do we believe this is a co-- a further cover-up because he's now-- they're now talking about a job that President Clinton himself should've known Rep. Sestak couldn't take...It's clearly a crime.

FACT: Legal experts, including former Bush administration officials, say there is nothing criminal about the story.

Former Bush Attorney General Mukasey Calls Allegations "Really...A Stretch." According to the Washington Post: "Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.) and nine other GOP lawmakers cited public-corruption statutes that make it a crime, among other things, to 'directly or indirectly promise any employment position, compensation, contract, appointment or other benefit.' But as the details of the conversation emerged Friday, the Washington legal community -- which loves a good public inquiry -- seemed unimpressed. Former Bush attorney general Michael B. Mukasey, who days earlier had said a special prosecutor might be warranted, changed his mind during an interview with Fox News. 'It really is a stretch,' he said. 'It would have to be something much more direct than what we have here.'" [Washington Post, 5/28/10, emphasis added]

CREW: "There Is No Bribery Case Here."  Talking Points Memo reported:  "Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor who as the head of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington isn't known for going on easy public corruption, concurred. 'There is no bribery case here,' she said. 'No statute has ever been used to prosecute anybody for bribery in circumstances like this.' Sloan added that Issa's move was more about politics. 'It's not at all about whether there was actual criminal wrongdoing,' she said. 'It's about how to go after Sestak.'" [Talking Points Memo, 5/25/10]

Ethics Lawyer: Difference Between "The Seedy Underbelly Of Politics" And "Crime." According to the Washington Post: "'Not everything that is unseemly or exposes the underbelly of politics is a crime,' said Stanley Brand, a lawyer who has represented Democratic and Republican members of Congress in ethics cases. But he added: 'They didn't help themselves by waiting to do this till now. They fostered the notion that there's something wrong.'" [Washington Post, 5/28/10]

GOP Election Lawyer: "Not Everything That's Bad Form Is Illegal." According to the Wall Street Journal: "'I don't recall there being any federal statute that prohibits somebody from offering a job in exchange for political support,' said Jan Baran, a top GOP election lawyer who has worked for the Republican National Committee. 'Not everything that's bad form is illegal.' As for the laws Issa cited, none is relevant to Sestak's situation, Baran said. 'I don't think they've ever been applied in this context,' he said. 'In fact, they may not have ever been enforced at all.'" [Wall Street Journal, 5/24/10]

Bush Ethics Lawyer: Bribe Allegation "Is Difficult To Support."  Richard Painter, a former chief ethics laywer in the Bush administration, wrote:

The allegation that the job offer was somehow a "bribe" in return for Sestak not running in the primary is difficult to support.  Sestak, if he had taken a job in the Administration, would not have been permitted to run in the Pennsylvania primary.   The Hatch Act prohibits a federal employee from being a candidate for nomination or election to a partisan political office.  5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(3).  He had to choose one or the other, but he could not choose both.

The job offer may have been a way of getting Sestak out of Specter's way, but this also is nothing new.  Many candidates for top Administration appointments are politically active in the President's political party.  Many are candidates or are considering candidacy in primaries.  White House political operatives don't like contentious fights in their own party primaries and sometimes suggest jobs in the Administration for persons who otherwise would be contenders.  For the White House, this is usually a "win-win" situation, giving the Administration politically savvy appointees in the Executive Branch and fewer contentious primaries for the Legislative Branch.  This may not be best for voters who have less choice as a result, and Sestak thus should be commended for saying "no".  The job offer, however, is hardly a "bribe" when it is one of two alternatives that are mutually exclusive. [Legal Ethics Forum, 5/24/10]

When Confronted With Expert Legal Opinions, Issa Avoided Questions And Echoed Political Posture From Republican Campaign Leadership Officials

CHRIS WALLACE (host): Congressman, both Michael Mukasey, the last Attorney General of the United States under President George W. Bush, and also the chief ethics officer in the Bush White House, both say that this is not a violation of the law, that that law was in effect for the spoils system and to prohibit people from offering jobs to someone to go out and support a political candidate.

REP. DARRELL ISSA: [Laughs]

WALLACE: This-- This is-- You smile, but this is Attorney General Mukasey saying this.

ISSA: Yeah. Well. What's amazing is that this administration wants to talk about not doing business is usual, and then this is clearly business as usual. Uh, Ed Rendell is saying this happens all the time. Sure it happens all the time, things like this. But it's usually carefully crafted so it doesn't fall under this kind of quid-pro-quo. And by the way, this is not what President Obama said as far back as North Carolina that things would be different. The question is, has this been transparent? No. Has there been stalling? Yes. Is there a possibility that what we're being told now is not true because it's not so plausible? Yes. Should there be an independent investigation so we can move on? Yes.

Fact: Top Republican National Committee officials use the same talking point about the Obama administration's ethics "claims."

RNC Communications Director Said Sestak Job Offer Undercuts "Obama's Claims To Have  A Different Kind Of White House." According to the Washington Post: "'This issue goes to the heart of Obama's claims to have a different kind of White House and that he would usher in a new era of transparency and accountability,' said Republican National Committee communications director Doug Heye." [Washington Post, 5/26/10, emphasis added]

RNC Chairman: "Administration...Claims To Be The Most Transparent, Accountable And Ethical... In History." In a statement on May 28, RNC Chairman Michael Steele said: "Now more than ever it is clear that this White House is not capable of policing itself and needs to open itself to an independent investigation.  But perhaps most disturbing is that this is an administration that claims to be the most transparent, accountable and ethical White House in history.  The only thing we know for certain now is that they have failed on all three counts." [Chairman Michael Steele, 5/28/10, emphasis added]

Issa's Staff Put Together An Attack Ad About The Story

Washington Post: National Republican Senatorial Committee Publicizing A "Countdown Clock" To Highlight Sestak Story. According to the Washington Post:

Conservatives, who've gotten the rest of the media interested in a bone they've been gnawing for months, aren't backing down in the least. The moment the leaks came out the National Republican Senatorial Committee announced a countdown clock tracking the days that Sestak has "refused to come clean on White House bribes."

[...]

How coordinated are Republicans on this? In its announcement, the NRSC sent along a video created by Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) team on the House Government Reform & Oversight Committee.

For Issa, it's a White House scandal. For the NRSC, it's a scandal on a candidate they want to beat. It's a beautiful thing.

[Washington Post, 5/28/10, emphasis added]

Meet the Press

CLAIM: J.D. Hayworth Said "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" Is A Code Word For Amnesty.

J.D. HAYWORTH: First of all, Americans understand that "comprehensive immigration reform" is a poll-tested phrase that essentially means "amnesty." People want to see the laws enforced.

FACT: Comprehensive Immigration Reform is not amnesty-- but opponents consistently use that word to undermine reform efforts.

"Amnesty" Is A Loaded Word Used To Delegitimize Reform. The Los Angeles Daily News reported in 2005: "Opponents say giving legal status to those who came illegally amount to that most provoking buzzword of all: 'amnesty.' George Lakoff, a Democratic political consultant and linguist at the University of California at Berkeley, said anti-immigration groups so far appear to be winning the language war, and the word 'amnesty' is their most powerful rhetorical weapon. 'Amnesty' assumes that there's been a serious crime. I mean, you don't have amnesty for shoplifters,' Lakoff said. 'It's seen as an attack on the country.'" [Daily News, 11/21/05, via Nexis]

2006: Senate Immigration Reform Bill Is Not Amnesty

McCain On '06 Senate Bill: "That's Not Amnesty." When asked if the immigration-reform bill passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee "effectively" constituted "amnesty," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said, "[T]hat's just absolutely false. It allows them to earn citizenship. What it does, it takes a $2,000 fine, it requires a background check, it requires learning of English, it requires six years of working and then eligibility for a green card, and five years after that. That doesn't fit any dictionary definition of amnesty. In fact, it's very, very tough, and that's, that's a major provision of it. That's not amnesty." [ABC's Good Morning America, 3/28/06, via Nexis]

Bush On '06 Immigration Legislation: "That's Not Amnesty." In a 2006 speech, President Bush said of immigration legislation proposed at the time, "[P]eople have been here legally, somebody who pays their dues, pays their taxes, pays a fine, proven to be a good citizen, they get at the end of the line. Someone said, well, that's amnesty -- that's not amnesty." [Bush White House website, 5/18/06]

2007: Calling Reform Amnesty Is Misleading

FactCheck.org; "Amnesty" Label Is "Misleading And A Classic Case Of Mislabeling." In 2007, FactCheck.org wrote:

[O]pponents of the immigration legislation also describe the bill as granting "amnesty." We find that label to be misleading and a classic case of mislabeling. Several dictionaries define "amnesty" as a pardon of past offenses, or clemency. But while the legislation would allow millions of persons who are in the country illegally to remain, it does not overlook violation of U.S. law. It would require illegal immigrants to pay a $1,000 penalty for having entered the country illegally, plus $2,000 in fees, and meet several other requirements before they could qualify for a temporary visa.

[...] 

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "amnesty" as "a general pardon granted by a government, especially for political offenses," and several other dictionaries give similar definitions. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary defines "amnesty" as "a general overlooking or pardon of past offences, by the ruling authority." But the Senate bill doesn't grant a general pardon. Instead, it would allow aliens who are in the country illegally to remain in the country on a probationary visa, called a "Z visa," after paying a fine and fees amounting to thousands of dollars. 
 
Each alien would have to pay a $1,000 "penalty" and $2,000 in fees for the temporary Z visa, pass a background check, and submit proof of employment and fingerprints. The American Immigration Lawyers Association calculates that for a family of four the total in fees and penalties for Z visas could reach $9,000, including fees for "derivative" applicants such as spouses and children. And after an initial four-year period, the bill requires additional processing fees for renewal, which the AILA figures could amount to $6,000 more. [FactCheck.org, 6/27/07]

Bush White House On '07 Legislation: "MYTH: This Is Amnesty." From the Bush White House website:

• FACT: Amnesty is the forgiveness of an offense without penalty. This proposal is not amnesty because illegal workers must acknowledge that they broke the law, pay a $1,000 fine, and undergo criminal background checks to obtain a Z visa granting temporary legal status

• FACT: To apply for a green card at a date years into the future, Z visa workers must wait in line behind those who applied lawfully, pay an additional $4,000 fine, complete accelerated English requirements, leave the U.S. and file their application in their home country, and demonstrate merit based on the skills and attributes they will bring to the United States.

• FACT: Workers approved for Z visas will be given a temporary legal status, but they will not enjoy the full privileges of citizens or Legal Permanent Residents, such as welfare benefits and the ability to sponsor relatives abroad as immigrants. [Bush White House website, 6/8/07]

2010: Graham-Schumer Legislation Similar To Other Proposals That Weren't Amnesty Bills Either

Outline Of Current Schumer-Graham Proposal Also Includes Penalties, Waiting Period. In a Washington Post op-ed previewing their current proposal, Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) wrote: "For the 11 million immigrants already in this country illegally, we would provide a tough but fair path forward. They would be required to admit they broke the law and to pay their debt to society by performing community service and paying fines and back taxes. These people would be required to pass background checks and be proficient in English before going to the back of the line of prospective immigrants to earn the opportunity to work toward lawful permanent residence." [Washington Post, 4/19/10]