Newt Pledges SecState to Bolton, Breaks Law

[Flagg]

HuffPO

Newt Gingrich Would Name John Bolton Secretary Of State If Elected

WASHINGTON -- Newt Gingrich said Wednesday that he would appoint John Bolton as secretary of state if he is elected in 2012.

The former speaker of the House got wild applause from the Republican Jewish Coalition when he said he would pick the neoconservative former U.N ambassador to be his top diplomat if he wins the GOP nomination and goes on to beat President Obama next November.

Despite Gingrich's comments, candidates can face fines and prison time for promising or pledging appointments. Mitt Romney also noted that he would consider nominating people for his Cabinet before the 2012 elections.

Gingrich's promised anointment of the hardline Bush administration veteran comes as Bolton and his fellow neocons are seeking a way back into the Republican Party's good graces after the invasion of Iraq and the insurgency that followed.

One of six GOP presidential contenders invited to address the RJC, Gingrich mentioned Bolton in broader criticism of the current State Department. In recent days, Gingrich has called on Obama to condemn comments by the U.S. ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gantman, for suggesting anti-semitism in the Middle East resulted from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He has also urged Obama to denounce Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's comment that Israel needs to get back to the "damn table" in negotiations with Palestinians. He repeated his criticism to warm applause.

Gingrich also got the crowd excited by saying he would order the U.S. Embassy in Israel to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want for the capital of a future state.

Bolding mine. According to Olbermann's show, you can get up to 2 years for knowingly pledging an appointment in order to garner support.

[The Romulan Republic]

2 years? Good. That'll keep him behind bars until after election day.

But seriously, why should this surprise anyone? The GOP shows little respect for the law save when it suits them.

[Bakustra]

Of course, attempting to enforce the law would provoke claims of political oppression, which is why Gingrich and Romney are doing this- nobody's going to crack down on them. I don't even know why that law's on the books, since the only way it can be used apart from suppressing third-party candidates is if everybody agrees to uphold it anyhow.

[Flagg]

Of course, attempting to enforce the law would provoke claims of political oppression, which is why Gingrich and Romney are doing this- nobody's going to crack down on them. I don't even know why that law's on the books, since the only way it can be used apart from suppressing third-party candidates is if everybody agrees to uphold it anyhow.

Pretty much. Imagine the Obama justice department actually trying to enforce this?

[Zinegata]

Point of order: Romney hasn't actually named anyone, and he specifically said in the same forum that he can't name names. So he at least seems to have remembered part of the law.

Gingrich you can shoot all you want with this.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There was a little slimy sludge of highly contaminated respect left at the bottom of a very big and very empty Georgia porkbarrel of respect for Gingrich, mostly because he can write readable fiction, which is harder than it looks. It just dried up and wafted off at the idea of ever letting that moron Bolton near the government again, who along with Gonzales is one of the two people I actually viscerally hate from the Bush administration.

[Flagg]

Isn't Gingrich an apostate Southern Baptist who converted to Catholicism?

[Pelranius]

Isn't Gingrich an apostate Southern Baptist who converted to Catholicism?

Unfortunately for me, yes. Let's just hope that my priest's idea of absolution doesn't involve going anywhere near one of Newt's political events.

[Flagg]

You'd think the evangelicals would hate him more than Romney, then.

[Jaepheth]

It has been my experience that Evangelicals give Catholics more slack than they do Mormons.

[Flagg]

It has been my experience that Evangelicals give Catholics more slack than they do Mormons.

Yeah but Romney's always been a Mormon. He didn't ditch his church to convert for his whore wife.

[Todeswind]

I don't think "Mormon for life" is a point in Romney's favor in this situation. Gingrich stitched from two religions that conservative american christians seem to accept as being "Christian" even if they disagree that they are on the right path to god.

In my experience Mormonism is not treated by Evangelicals with the same sense of legitimacy as Catholicism or other variants of Protestantism. I can't count the number of times I've heard some variant of "Mormons aren't Christians."

Come to think of it my Evangelical relatives seem to have more respect for the Jews than they do for Mormons, though I'm not sure how much of that is simply their blind Zionist favoritism.

[Patrick Degan]

I think you'd have to demonstrate an actual quid-pro-quo arrangement for the law to kick in; otherwise Newt's statement is nothing more than public posturing to the red-meat crowd. The idea that he would actually pick the evil Mirror-Universe Capt. Kangaroo for State is just another reason why Newt should never be allowed to be president.

[Flagg]

U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 29, Section 599 reads: “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.”

He did it to garner support, willfully. He broke the law. No quid pro quo is necessary according to this.

[Todeswind]

I'm with Flagg on this. There isn't a lot of wiggle room in that law, and rightly so.

[Phantasee]

I'd think nearly anything a candidate does is for the purpose of procuring support, so it should apply.

[Patrick Degan]

Um, nope:

USA Today published a story claiming that Newt Gingrich broke the law when he said during the Republican Jewish Coalition GOP debate on Wednesday that he would appoint John Bolton, the former ambassador to the UN, as Secretary of State. The story has been picked up by several other outlets. However, those claims are false.

Newt’s comment was, “If he will accept it, I will ask John Bolton to be Secretary of State.” The basis for calling this illegal is Title 18, Part I, 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…

The clause that spares Newt is “for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy.” As TPM reported, Bolton will not indicate if he would accept such a position, nor has he even endorsed a candidate.

Law professor Rick Hasen, author of the Election Law Blog agrees in a post at his blog: “I read this [clause] as requiring proof Gingrich said he would appoint Bolton for the purpose of getting Bolton’s support. More likely, Gingrich made the promise to gain support from voters.”

A second regular TPM source who in this instance preferred not to be named affirmed that to be illegal requires “a quid pro quo transaction , i.e., Newt would have to offer an appointment to an individual in exchange for that individual’s support for his candidacy. It doesn’t apply to a public announcement by a candidate that he would appoint a specific person to a specific position in order to curry favor with a specific portion of the general public.”

I'm sorry, but you'd never get a prosecution out of this incident the same way you wouldn't get a prosecution against Mitt Romney for making an off-the-cuff statement at another campaign rally of appointing Rudy Giuliani as his attorney-general. The law is not meant to be interpreted in such a sweepingly catch-all manner.

[Xenophobe3691]

So basically the law is to prevent cronyism?

[Block]

So basically the law is to prevent cronyism?

Yes. Specifically the spoils system if I remember right.

[Flagg]

Um, nope:

USA Today published a story claiming that Newt Gingrich broke the law when he said during the Republican Jewish Coalition GOP debate on Wednesday that he would appoint John Bolton, the former ambassador to the UN, as Secretary of State. The story has been picked up by several other outlets. However, those claims are false.

Newt’s comment was, “If he will accept it, I will ask John Bolton to be Secretary of State.” The basis for calling this illegal is Title 18, Part I, 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…

The clause that spares Newt is “for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy.” As TPM reported, Bolton will not indicate if he would accept such a position, nor has he even endorsed a candidate.

Law professor Rick Hasen, author of the Election Law Blog agrees in a post at his blog: “I read this [clause] as requiring proof Gingrich said he would appoint Bolton for the purpose of getting Bolton’s support. More likely, Gingrich made the promise to gain support from voters.”

A second regular TPM source who in this instance preferred not to be named affirmed that to be illegal requires “a quid pro quo transaction , i.e., Newt would have to offer an appointment to an individual in exchange for that individual’s support for his candidacy. It doesn’t apply to a public announcement by a candidate that he would appoint a specific person to a specific position in order to curry favor with a specific portion of the general public.”

I'm sorry, but you'd never get a prosecution out of this incident the same way you wouldn't get a prosecution against Mitt Romney for making an off-the-cuff statement at another campaign rally of appointing Rudy Giuliani as his attorney-general. The law is not meant to be interpreted in such a sweepingly catch-all manner.

I'll defer to the experts despite the fact that that's not how the law reads.