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

[The Prof]

2007 is so small in america's rear view mirror

DoJ nixes Sestak special counsel - John Bresnahan and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

 

[Renae]

Fox news already handled that.

Let me ask you Vicchio, have you ever attempted to pick apart a story, goto some other sources, getting multiple perspectives and then deciding for yourself what the truth is?

I do, but it's more fun to watch folks like you spin against the HATED FOX NEWS then it is for me to wade around the web. Ya know, what's funnier is that my wife called this reaction when I posted this!

My question is, instead of whining about my using Fox... why don't you post articles from "more trustworthy" sites?

 

[DeeJayH]

typical that they would point to how this is how things get done in Washington. The fact that it is illegal does not seem to matter since it is 'how things are done'
pathetic disgrace, but carry on

 

[Deuce]

typical that they would point to how this is how things get done in Washington. The fact that it is illegal does not seem to matter since it is 'how things are done'
pathetic disgrace, but carry on

Even Sestak says nothing illegal happened so I really don't get where people assume that something illegal did happen.

 

[texmaster]

Even Sestak says nothing illegal happened so I really don't get where people assume that something illegal did happen.

By his own admission he was offered a job not to run.

I do find it amusing that you think Sestak's opinion means anything.


Federal statute 18 USC 600, which says the following:

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both

Based on his own admission he was offered a job even though he claims it did not have immediate finantial value it was still an appointment.

 

[zimmer]

I know it's splitting hairs, but there IS a difference between "offering" someone something and "promising" someone something. Example:

"If you drop out of the campaign, I can assure you a position on such and such counsel."

...VERSUS...

"Would you be interested in a position on such and such counsel in lieu of continuing as a Congressman in the House of Representatives?"

There's a difference between the two. Add in the fact that it was a former President who made the offer and is obviously familiar with this particular law and knows exactly how to avoid stepping into that legal minefield, and what you get is a situation that looks unethical, but legally is not.

Of course, we all know the Obama Administration did a round-robin here compliments of Bill Clinton, but it still looks bad. Politics as usual I suppose. At worse, Rahm Emanual pays a fine; at best DOJ stands by its position and nothing comes of this. I think we'll see the latter happen because in all honestly no law has been broken.

Sidenote: Even if such a thing has been done by prior White House administrations, it's still bad form.

Even George Stephanopolous knew how to hint at a job offer in 1992.
YouTube - The War Room pt 8.

It is what he says and how he says it at the 3:00 minute mark; I'd start listening around the 2:45 mark as a lead-in.

.

 

[Ockham]

Even Sestak says nothing illegal happened so I really don't get where people assume that something illegal did happen.

Why shouldn't he say in the past and even now, nothing illegal happened? First - is he a judge or lawyer well versed in Title 18 section 26? No. Does he benefit in the public view denying anything illegal happend? Of course! So at this point, Sestak really isn't too trustworthy - though he has been consistent in he was offered a job not by Bill Clinton - why by the way is NOT part of the White House, which is not what he affirmed in multiple interviews. There's some little inconsistencies there and now to hear that Bill Clinton - the most influential ex-President, was sent in to have a 30-50 second conversation to offer Sestak a non-paying job while keeping his House seat as incentive to not run against Specter?

Dunno but that's not much of an incentive. I think we need the FBI or the Pennsylvania AG to open an investigation of the DoJ and Holder will not assign a special prosecutor, to investigate and find out exactly what DID happen.

 

[Dezaad]

Ok, partisans hacks:

Are you really saying that party strategy is illegal? Because that is precisely what this is, and Republicans do it too, from the highest to the lowest levels. This is just the best scandal they can come up with in the runup to the midterms.

This is the Democratic Party leadership saying "I think it would be better for our overall party strategy for you to have this position and to let such and such run unimpeded for that position". There is nothing illegal about this, and the Republicans know it. But, they know that the good Americans they use will believe it to be a scandal, for a while, which is insulting to the intelligence of those Americans that do. One of these days, they'll realize they are being used and it will backfire on the Republican party. One thing Democrats don't do is insult their own partisans.

 

[Ockham]

Ok, partisans hacks:

Are you really saying that party strategy is illegal? Because that is precisely what this is, and Republicans do it too, from the highest to the lowest levels. This is just the best scandal they can come up with in the runup to the midterms.

This is the Democratic Party leadership saying "I think it would be better for our overall party strategy for you to have this position and to let such and such run unimpeded for that position". There is nothing illegal about this, and the Republicans know it. But, they know that the good Americans they use will believe it to be a scandal, for a while, which is insulting to the intelligence of those Americans that do. One of these days, they'll realize they are being used and it will backfire on the Republican party. One thing Democrats don't do is insult their own partisans.

It's not what was done, but HOW it was done. Legally, we need facts in order to exonerate the White House and Sestak.

 

[Ockham]

Anyone know off this "Romanoff" story? I was looking into more of the Sestak quotes on various news shows to see what he's said and where those pesky inconsistencies were - and I come across this story from Denver Post:

WASHINGTON — Not long after news leaked last month that Andrew Romanoff was determined to make a Democratic primary run against Sen. Michael Bennet, Romanoff received an unexpected communication from one of the most powerful men in Washington.

Jim Messina, President Barack Obama's deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop, suggested a place for Romanoff might be found in the administration and offered specific suggestions, according to several sources who described the communication to The Denver Post.

Romanoff turned down the overture, which included mention of a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency, sources said.

D.C. job alleged as attempt to deter Romanoff - The Denver Post

So the op-ed of the Denver Post --- finally puts 2 and 2 together and puts out an interesting scenario. "What if Sestak isn't the only one?"

You might be able to ignore Sestak, but another similar story makes the plot far more plausible.

None of this is exactly shocking stuff — but I was actually slightly surprised to find out that job offers of this variety were illegal. Yet, it is one thing for an administration to "urge" someone to make room for a preferred candidate and quite another for it to use its power to offer (or even discuss) a taxpayer-funded position as a payoff.

Don't take my word for it. Axelrod says it's a breach of law.

Interesting... now there's smoke from both Pennsylvania and Colorado. How many more smoking areas will need to crop up to investigate I wonder?

 

[The Prof]

the ax is a hack

White House Wards Off Questions about Alleged Sestak Job Offer - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

On CNN, Axelrod agreed that if Sestak's assertions were true, "they would constitute a serious breach of the law"

 

[pragmatic]

I know it's splitting hairs, but there IS a difference between "offering" someone something and "promising" someone something. Example:

"If you drop out of the campaign, I can assure you a position on such and such counsel."

...VERSUS...

"Would you be interested in a position on such and such counsel in lieu of continuing as a Congressman in the House of Representatives?"

There's a difference between the two. Add in the fact that it was a former President who made the offer and is obviously familiar with this particular law and knows exactly how to avoid stepping into that legal minefield, and what you get is a situation that looks unethical, but legally is not.

Of course, we all know the Obama Administration did a round-robin here compliments of Bill Clinton, but it still looks bad. Politics as usual I suppose. At worse, Rahm Emanual pays a fine; at best DOJ stands by its position and nothing comes of this. I think we'll see the latter happen because in all honestly no law has been broken.

Sidenote: Even if such a thing has been done by prior White House administrations, it's still bad form.

It's an interesting situation at the moment. When the White House first came out with their explanation ("Clinton and Unpaid Advisor") my impression was/is that it just doesn't pass the smell test. Doesn't line up with Sestak's earlier comments and the "Unpaid" part is way to convenient. Still smells and am suspicious that all or most of the story my be bogus.

That said, am guessing that in semi-worse case scenario, if there really had been a Naval Secretary offer to Sestak (in return for dropping out of the Senate race) it would never have resulted in an actual prosecution. That probably is too close to" business as usual" in Washington and the parties involved could/would have talked their way out of it.

But there would have been the potential for large political damage. And at a time that the Administration could ill afford it. So at this point the story will either fade away, helped along by the Friday release timing of the explanation (btw...very smart). Or some news agency (or political opponent) could keep plugging away and MAY find hole/inconsistency in the WH explanation. (really would only take one "insider" coming forward if there actually is a scandal being suppressed here)

As is often the case in politics. It ain't the misdeed that leads to the firestorm, its the effort to cover it up. :doh



Time will tell.....

 

[Deuce]

It's not what was done, but HOW it was done. Legally, we need facts in order to exonerate the White House and Sestak.

No, legally we need facts to charge them with something.

 

[The Prof]

sestak's personal testimony, repeated oft, witnessed by millions: I WAS OFFERED A JOB BY THE WHITE HOUSE TO DROP OUT OF THE PRIMARY

 

[hazlnut]

It's simply amazing how quickly the sheep flock to the Fox News "legal analysts" (who must have gotten their law degree from Sam's Club) and this moronic distraction...

Let's see, last month they found Obama's Katrina, not they have his Watergate... If they dumb the argument down any more, it will be pre-schoolers finger painting...

Right-wing media dub false allegations about Sestak "bribe" as "Obama's Watergate"

Sloan: "There is no bribery case here." Talking Points Memo's Zachary Roth reported in a May 25 post that "several experts tell TPMmuckraker this is much ado about nothing" and quoted Sloan saying, "There is no bribery case here. ... No statute has ever been used to prosecute anybody for bribery in circumstances like this." Sloan also said: "It's not at all about whether there was actual criminal wrongdoing. ... It's about how to go after Sestak."

Brand: "I don't put much stock in this, and I don't think its gonna go anywhere;" charges have "no legal substance." Roth also quoted Stan Brand, a "prominent Washington criminal defense lawyer," saying that "people horse trade politically all the time. ... So I don't put much stock in this, and I don't think its gonna go anywhere." Brand is also quoted in Mother Jones magazine saying claims that the alleged actions are illegal "is a nice political ploy. ... But it has no legal substance. The president can promise Sestak the moon for a political reason. That's the system."

Zeidenberg: "Horrible precedent" to treat "horsetrading" "in the criminal context." Roth also quoted Peter Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor with the Justice Department's Public Integrity unit, saying, "Talk about criminalizing the political process!... It would be horrible precedent if what really truly is political horsetrading were viewed in the criminal context of: is this a corrupt bribe?"

How many actual credible lawyers have to tell you there is NO CRIME here before the far-righties drop this and move on to something else?

 

[Jetboogieman]

How many actual credible lawyers have to tell you there is NO CRIME here before the far-righties drop this and move on to something else?

They can't and they won't. They have to find any excuse to nail something to the president, and will not stop til he's been drawn, quartered and his head and limbs have been sent to the four corners of America. At least that's the way it feels. Any little thing they can get to pin on him, and they're there screaming and shouting, with foam coming out of their mouths.

 

[Renae]

It's okay, at least with this we'll get the Penn Senate Seat for sure now.

Sestak can be easily cast as an idiot. He CLAIMED right up until the WH cooked up this explanation, that someone "IN THE WHITE HOUSE" offered him a job to drop out of the race. But now he's on record as saying it was an innocent inquiry by Bill Clinton. So you can imagine what the GOP ads against him are gonna be like right? "Sestak, he thinks Bill Clinton still works in the White House"

 

[zimmer]

No, legally we need facts to charge them with something.

True, but the biggest fact is Sestak's interview with Larry Kane.
That was an unscripted, unadulterated, UnObama'd moment.
It revealed clearly a job was offered... by the man on the receiving end of the offer.

Sestak sure did not seem too confident with his story yesterday. He couldn't even remember the job offered him.
U-N-C-R-E-D-I-B-L-E.
Like Obama himself, and the proven perjurer brought in to take the hit.

But... he admitted a job was offered and that is all that matters.

What is now required is a Grand Jury looking at all manner of records; phone call records, emails, letters, and transcripts of lawyers deposing droves of people.
Sestak's wife and staff for starters.

The fan has been hit with a full load, we smell it... and soon will see it flying.
Obi's drones will have to duck and cover.

.

 

[hazlnut]

It's not what was done, but HOW it was done. Legally, we need facts in order to exonerate the White House and Sestak.

How can they be exonerated if they've never been convicted of a crime?

 

[hazlnut]

They can't and they won't. They have to find any excuse to nail something to the president, and will not stop til he's been drawn, quartered and his head and limbs have been sent to the four corners of America. At least that's the way it feels. Any little thing they can get to pin on him, and they're there screaming and shouting, with foam coming out of their mouths.

It was almost laughable, if it were so totally irresponsible and overtly partisan, when FNC started raising the "is this impeachable?" question.

They've become right-wing talk radio on TV -- bombarding their viewers with moronic talking points. 0 credibility.

 

[zimmer]

How many actual credible lawyers have to tell you there is NO CRIME here before the far-righties drop this and move on to something else?

ROTFLMFAO... Squirm Baby Squirm!!! LOL

That is why Sestak said he was offered a job, and why Obama released the BS parade before a long weekend.

We are not going to drop this. Why should we?
Watching THE ARROGANT ONE illustrate what he means by "most ethical" is priceless.

Sestak made it plain and clear 3-MONTHS ago and several times therafter that he was offered a job to get out of the race with Specter.

LOL... of course that doesn't count. ROTFLMFAOSHIH.... He wasn't schooled in Obama-Lies or Clintonese.
But he is proving a fast leasrner. Soon he will have his own School of Deception.

It does not matter if that job was dog catcher for ZERO cash.
Does not matter.

PS. I enjoy watching you Libs squirm... it's vunderful.
Gotta get more popcorn.

.

 

[hazlnut]

ROTFLMFAO... Squirm Baby Squirm!!! LOL

I'm glad you find it amusing that credible lawyers (people who understand the law) have stated there is no crime.

Zimmer:

Answer this -- Why is acknowledging that statement by lawyers from both sides 'squirming'?

I would argue that denying or avoiding the statements made by credible lawyers is squirming. You've been told that the facts don't support the 'bribery' talking point made by pundits on Fox News. So now what? You could:
a) accept this and move on
b) accept this but condemn the politics as usual practice
c) deny this and continue believing a falsehood

That is why Sestak said he was offered a job, and why Obama released the BS parade before a long weekend.

What is why? I honestly don't know what 'that' refers to.

We are not going to drop this. Why should we?
Watching THE ARROGANT ONE illustrate what he means by "most ethical" is priceless.

Fair enough. Next time the GOP engages in this exact same practice, I'll expect the same reaction.
If you really wanted to be honest, you could go back and name instances when other administrations did this and you condemned it.

Sestak made it plain and clear 3-MONTHS ago and several times therafter that he was offered a job to get out of the race with Specter.

By your initial LOL reaction, I thought you were going to actually make a case for it being a crime, instead you just recite the facts, relevant and otherwise. You can laugh all you want at the Dem squirming, but that doesn't make this a crime. In fact the more you laugh, the more time the other side spends pulling out the history of every GOP Administration who did the exact same thing. What a great use of time--laughing and finger pointing.:roll:

 

[Ockham]

No, legally we need facts to charge them with something.

Then I'd assume you'd agree to support a special prosecutor and investigation to either exonerate or charge those involved?

 

[American]

Slick Willie strikes again.

 

[zimmer]

Fair enough. Next time the GOP engages in this exact same practice, I'll expect the same reaction.
If you really wanted to be honest, you could go back and name instances when other administrations did this and you condemned it.

And with this statement you ADMIT a crime was committed.
Yes, if a Republican did this, he would be subject to the same law. 18 USC 600

By your initial LOL reaction, I thought you were going to actually make a case for it being a crime, instead you just recite the facts, relevant and otherwise.

All you need to do is read the interview with Larry Kane.
All the evidence is right there in that interview.
Sestak admits to being offered a job from the White House.

The Joe Sestak “Question” – Anatomy Of An Interview That Spread Like Wildfire at The Larry Kane Report

“Were you ever offered a job to get out of this race? (The contest against Arlen Specter).

Sestak didn’t flinch .

“Yes,” he answered.

“Was it Navy Secretary?”, I asked

“No comment.”

He proceeded to talk about staying in the race but added that “he was called many times” to pull out.

Later, I asked, “So you were offered a job by someone in the White House?”

He said, “Yes.”

When the taping stopped, Joe Sestak looked surprised .

“You are the first person who ever asked me that question.”

And that was true. But why was I the first. There was buzz about this story since last summer. A few days before the February 18th taping of Voice Of Reason for The Comcast Network, I was advised by two reliable sources that someone in or close to the White House had dangled a high level job offer to Sestak, to give a clear path to Senator Specter for the nomination. I thought it would be a good thing to pose the question to Sestak in the upcoming interview.

Of course, such blatantly obvious facts do not penetrate minds like yours.

.