Ben Carson Admits Trump Illegally Promised Him Cabinet Position For Endorsement

The plot(s) thicken (what a moroon!)

http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/03/15/ben-carson-admits-trump-illegally-promised-cabinet-position-endorsement/

The end of Dr. Ben Carson’s presidential campaign elaborate book tour unfortunately did not mean an end to Carson’s involvement in the Republican primary race. Following in the calculating and self-serving footsteps of also-ran Gov. Chris Christie before him, Carson discarded what few principles he had and endorsed Donald Trump to win the nomination, in an obviously play for personal gain and political influence out of whatever remains of the Republican Party after the ashes of this destructive primary season finally settle. He confirmed as much today when he announced that Trump had promised him a position in his “administration” should he win the election, “certainly in an advisory capacity…we haven’t handled out all the details but it is very important that we work together in this country … Again, I’m not going to reveal any details about it right now because all of this is still very liquid.”

It is a puzzling move on the part of the eternally nonsensical Carson, who promptly abandoned the millions of black Americans who admired for his achievements as a surgeon by endorsing Trump, which in itself is an endorsement of the bigotry and discrimination against minorities that characterizes the Trump campaign. It also makes one question his judgement once again, considering that Trump one compared him to a “child molester” and called him a pathological liar.

Given Carson’s well-demonstrated ignorance of the laws of the United States, it should come as no surprise that he may not have understood that his endorsement in exchange for a position, apart from being appalling from a moral standpoint, is also potentially illegal.

18 U.S. Code § 599 states that “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.”

Accusations of being a opportunistic Uncle Tom who has abandoned his commitment to anything but his own personal gain have dogged Carson throughout his “campaign”; he has blatantly reinforced negative stereotypes about African-Americans with his bizarre fabricated stories about his childhood violence; he delegimitizes the very real concerns of race in regards to police brutality and social discrimination, asking blacks to “de-emphasize race and emphasize respect for each other” while the  Black Lives Matter movement “silly” and “sickening bullies;” he hired known racist and Jim Crow advocate Charles W. Pickering to be his Mississippi campaign chair, and compared women who abort the babies of their rapists to “slave owners.”

He is a traitor of the most despicable kind in a time of deep racial tension; instead of using his position of prominence in the Republican Party as the sole African-American candidate to provoke a real discussion on race in his party, he continually laid down and spouted the FOX News version of racial relations in America, consistently portraying black Americans to second-class citizens addicted to welfare and entitlements despite the public safety net’s critical role in his own successes and heavily implied that the systematic repression of black Americans in this country is due to their own moral deficiency. If it wasn’t clear enough before, this announcement proves that he is a man of no principles and no conscience.

When I first heard about the endorsement, I imagined Trump saying to him, "You'd make an excellent Surgeon General."

The report is from Occupy Democrats so it must be true

lord_pabulum said:

The report is from Occupy Democrats so it must be true

Yeah, it would be interesting if they made up those quotes.

Well, there is a difference, for example, between "...Trump once compared [Carson] to a child molester” 

and the actual quote:

"It's in the book that he's got a pathological temper," Trump told Erin Burnett OutFront, speaking about Carson's autobiography. "That's a big problem because you don't cure that ... as an example: child molesting. You don't cure these people. You don't cure a child molester. There's no cure for it. Pathological, there's no cure for that."

Republican advocacy groups (e.g. American Action Network) do the same word twisting thing for their supporters too

Or the video (which was posted by that liberal bastion NewsMax)

I was referring to Carson saying he might be retained "in an advisory capacity…we haven’t handled out all the details but it is very important that we work together in this country … Again, I’m not going to reveal any details about it right now because all of this is still very liquid.”

I do love Carson's endorsement, though: "Even if Donald Trump turns out not to be such a great president, which I don't think is the case, I think he's going to surround himself with really good people, but even if he didn't, we're only looking at four years as opposed to multiple generations and perhaps the loss of the American dream forever."

Even the dyed in the wool Trumpets here will get a laugh out of this.  Stick with it at least until 5:00 when "Ben Carson" gets attacked at a Trump rally:    

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E--oLFYs9aI

Speaking of morons, why would anyone rely on this group for making a foolish pronouncement.  Even though I thoroughly dislike Trump and would only vote for his candidacy for Christie's butler, why do you feel it necessary to start a thread based on the stupid comments from this source?

thechamp said:

Speaking of morons, why would anyone rely on this group for making a foolish pronouncement.  Even though I thoroughly dislike Trump and would only vote for his candidacy for Christie's butler, why do you feel it necessary to start a thread based on the stupid comments from this source?

Are you objecting to the message or the messenger?  If it's the messenger, maybe one of these are more to your liking:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1992754-ben-carson-trump-promised-me-a-spot-in-government/

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1992754-ben-carson-trump-promised-me-a-spot-in-government/

http://www.thelibertyeagle.com/carson-suggests-hes-been-promised-spot-in-trump-administration/

http://cbsport.org/2016/03/ben-carson-im-promised-a-spot-in-trump-administration/

http://www.teaparty.org/ben-carson-im-promised-spot-trump-administration-149023/

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEVynFmehW6MIA1qZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTFhNDJqMGhqBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQTAxOTlfMQRzZWMDcGFnaW5hdGlvbg--?p=ben+carson+promised+post+in+trump+administration&pz=10&type=C211US0D20151225&fr=mcafee&bct=0&b=1&pz=10&bct=0&xargs=0

http://commentators.com/ben-carson-to-newsmax-im-promised-a-spot-in-trump-administration/

But he hasn't been arrested, so he didn't break the law.  And Benghazi and emails and......

Thought I'd get ahead of the curve.

mumstheword said:

thechamp said:

Speaking of morons, why would anyone rely on this group for making a foolish pronouncement.  Even though I thoroughly dislike Trump and would only vote for his candidacy for Christie's butler, why do you feel it necessary to start a thread based on the stupid comments from this source?

Are you objecting to the message or the messenger?  If it's the messenger, maybe one of these are more to your liking:

[ Insert list of random partisan bloggish google searches here. ]

Not really.

Not sure if he broke the law, but it's pretty clear he's under the impression that he traded his support for a role in a potential Trump administration. That's old school politics. But he made the mistake of verbalizing it.

The law is only broken if Carson gets a cabinet position.

I find it shocking that a politician would even consider making such a patronage appointment.

I mean, that's certainly never happened in our country before.  

(BTW, no fan of Trump here to be certain, but there are far more legitimate things to be unhappy about with his candidacy)

I think it's not surprising that this happens.

What is surprising is that a candidate for president is so clueless about the law that he didn't realize he shouldn't say this out loud. 

True - Like Trump, Ben Carson is not a lawyer or part of the establishment.  If they were this potential patronage appointment would have been done secretly, the proper way.

I think even the common man is fairly well versed in 'bribery' and that being indiscreet about it can get you in trouble.

sprout said:

I think even the common man is fairly well versed in 'bribery' and that being indiscreet about it can get you in trouble.

Well, if you think a President should value discretion above all else, you've certainly got a candidate to vote for, who would also be our first female president.   

And who is more well versed in discreet bribery than the folks at the Clinton Foundation? 

In politics, do we have choices other than slimy or clueless?

Slimy is predictable and can sometimes be anticipated and rooted out.

Clueless tends to lead to chaos. 

When Slimy feels all-powerful, they can get reckless and do things Clueless was likely to have thought was a good idea sooner. Like a vendetta bridge traffic thingy.

Apparently Earl Warren supported Eisenhower because he requested and was pledged by Eisenhower a Supreme Court appointment upon the first opening. So this thread is much ado about nothing.

I think this thread is about Carson making the mistake of blurting it out.

It was illegal then, it's illegal now. 

Trump would be guilty of the crime, not Carson.

Hillary Clinton has been under non-stop and, often personal, attack by the Cons since entering the public spotlight in 1992.  It is not surprising that she is a bit tarnished and dinged up.  I think more than anything else, Clinton is proof positive that women in positions of authority often have a harder time of it than do men in similar positions.

ice said:

sprout said:

I think even the common man is fairly well versed in 'bribery' and that being indiscreet about it can get you in trouble.

Well, if you think a President should value discretion above all else, you've certainly got a candidate to vote for, who would also be our first female president.  "> 

And who is more well versed in discreet bribery than the folks at the Clinton Foundation? 

I wish people would not do what you just did - pollute undeniably true things like your first statement with absurd and destructive memes like your last sentence.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich was given 14 years in federal prison for (among other things) the corrupt act of attempting to sell the appointment that would fill the Senate position vacated when Barack Obama was elected President.  Is this any different?  I would suppose such a "sale" would not have to be for money, just for anything of value to those involved, like a political endorsement from a trailing or dropped-out political candidate who nevertheless has a following who could swing a nomination or an election.

 Here's a video of the interview. Hear it from his own mouth. 

http://news.groopspeak.com/ben-carson-admits-that-trump-offered-him-favors-for-his-endorsement-a-federal-crime-video/

I just listened to it prior to you posting this.  He admitted that he would be in an advisory position. However, it could be an informal position without pay and then I doubt if it would pass muster of being a crime.

"Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink."

Martin Michael Lomasney 1859-1933. Boston Political Boss known as the "Mahatma"

I do not know who said this:

"It's only illegal if you get caught"

sprout said:

In politics, do we have choices other than slimy or clueless?

Slimy is predictable and can sometimes be anticipated and rooted out.

Clueless tends to lead to chaos. 

When Slimy feels all-powerful, they can get reckless and do things Clueless was likely to have thought was a good idea sooner. Like a vendetta bridge traffic thingy.

My choice is between the candidate with whose likely policies I agree and the candidate with whose likely policies I disagree. And some Presidential Election years by "policies" I include likely appointees to the Supreme Court. Of course if I want to be "pure" and avoid slimy, clueless, etc. I can refrain from voting or even avoid politics altogether.

As to another quote which might apply to politics, Woody Allen was asked if sex was dirty and replied "It is if you do it right".