• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House Asked Bill Clinton to Urge Sestak to Drop Out of Senate Race

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
FOXNews.com - White House Asked Bill Clinton to Urge Sestak to Drop Out of Senate Race

Sot he White House admits, they got Clinton to ask for them.

Let the spinning begin!
 
Joe Sestak released the following statement today:
where is the requisite political act - the consideration - to make the offer of a federal position something found illegal?
 
FOXNews.com - White House Asked Bill Clinton to Urge Sestak to Drop Out of Senate Race

Sot he White House admits, they got Clinton to ask for them.

Let the spinning begin!

This is going to be really hard to spin...


http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/600.html

Not sure if this is an impeachable offence, but there is a lot of talk in that direction.
 
Last edited:
It was an informal "hey is this something you're interested in?" according to Clinton.

He responded with "No."

There wasn't an offer by anyone in the administration so I don't see how it could be called illegal.
 
Yeah, the WH got Bill to do it.

OF course, there is nothing improper, that's why Sestak took so long to say it was Clinton! Because really, it wasn't a big deal... a year of building questions...

You believe this pile of well spun **** you'll believe anything.
 

Why do you think he was so hesitant to say it was Clinton?

edit: And on what basis do you assume the White House to be lying, other than your partisan preconceptions I mean.
 
Last edited:
Why do you think he was so hesitant to say it was Clinton?

edit: And on what basis do you assume the White House to be lying, other than your partisan preconceptions I mean.

Why would he call Bill Clinton "Someone in the White House"?

Sestak is smarter then that.

They realized this could be bad, created a story that covered everyone's ass, and ran with it.

What brought down Nixon? It wasn't the crime, ti was the cover up.
 
That is exactly right, and any reasonable person should be able to see right through this....Earlier someone asked on what basis do we assume the WH to be lying, that one is easy, They said something didn't they?


j-mac
 

Are you denying it was Clinton he spoke to? Because he has confirmed that. I'll be more specific:

On what evidence do you assume the White House is lying?
 
Are you denying it was Clinton he spoke to? Because he has confirmed that. I'll be more specific:

On what evidence do you assume the White House is lying?


Um...Because they lie constantly.


j-mac
 
But THEY didn't ask, so it's no big deal see.. move along thee is nothing here.

Imagine if this was Bush in office.

Think of previous witch hunts:

Plame
the AG firings...
 
Are you denying it was Clinton he spoke to? Because he has confirmed that. I'll be more specific:

On what evidence do you assume the White House is lying?

Actually, they aren't "lying".... they are spinning. They have admitted the truth, but they say no laws were broken.


GOP: White House Sestak story not believable | Washington Examiner

Click this link for the White House statement.....http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/Sestak Memorandum.pdf

Scroll down to paragraph 4, line one...... they admit that what Sestak has been saying is accurate.

Now here is the law that aplies...


http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/600.html

There was a direct Quid Pro Quo involved here by the White House, by their own admission. It's a felony. If you think Rahm did it behind Barry's back I have a bridge to sell you.
 
Last edited:
It was an informal "hey is this something you're interested in?" according to Clinton.
He responded with "No."
There wasn't an offer by anyone in the administration so I don't see how it could be called illegal.

The important line:

He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives.

The offer was from Emanuel. Clinton was just the message boy.
 
Asking someone if they are interested in a position is not the same as offering a job in exchange for something.
 
Asking someone if they are interested in a position is not the same as offering a job in exchange for something.
-That's- just spin.
 

check this out, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses
page 134: the public integrity folks at DOJ have concluded that this situation does not meet the guidelines for a case worthy of prosecution
 
Bush Offers Job Protection to Doctors Against Abortions - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

Bush offed job protection to doctor who were against abortion

Judge Grudge


I guess people forget get what bush did in office


Hugh's List of Bush Scandals | NetRootsMass




Reagan administration scandals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Why is bush above the law?


Why do you forget about this, and what Bush did during his admiration

Bush did the same thing however with out Congress approval.

CNN.com - Bush uses recess appointment to put nominee on court - Feb. 20, 2004
 
check this out, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses
page 134:
the public integrity folks at DOJ have concluded that this situation does not meet the guidelines for a case worthy of prosecution

The DOJ didn't believe armed men in front of a polling place was voter intimidation either. This is going to get so bad as far as the public is concerned, Holder will have to appoint a special prosecutor or Congress will after the November elections. This is blatantly illegal activity and everyone knows Holder is Barry's bitch.
 
If this is "no big deal" why on earth did it take the WH days and days under pressure to concoct a response?
 
that DOJ document, which shows there is no basis to move toward prosecution in this matter, was crafted druing the dicknbush regime
it was not holder's people who came to that conclusion
 

Was there a point to this post?..... or was it you just couldn't resist bringing up Bush?

HELLO!!!!!.... Bush is retired and we are talking about illegal acts in the present White House.
 
Probably belongs in the CONspiracy forum.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…