Sestak Controversy

Remove all ads!

This one has been stewing for a little while, but since no one has said anything definitive either way, there hasn't really been much to talk about. That changed today as the White House admitted that it (read Rahm Emanuel) asked Bill Clinton to talk to Joe Sestak about a White House job if he'd drop out of the Senate race:

Either this is going to be bad for Obama (as there's little doubt in my mind that he originated the idea) or for Joe Sestak (at least for making a big deal over nothing and then saying nothing to clarify). At the very least, though, it's yet one more remarkably opaque aspect of Obama's 'transparent government'.

The big question, though, is whether it actually amounts to bribery. I'm no lawyer, so I don't know. The White House legal people have announced there was no wrongdoing. The House Republicans are calling for an indepenent investigation.

 

I'm not quite sure that it was Obama's idea. This has the smell of Rahm's work (The Democratic version of Karl Rove). I also find it interesting that Sestak will not back down as towards his statements. If he admits he may have been mistaken, it may cost him the election for the Senate, but it could save the administration. If the Reps take over the House and Senate in November I wouldn't be surprised at all if this ends up in an impeachment.

The administration is being stupid. The smart move here is to either sacrifice someone or to admit it happened, but to claim that it was an "off the cuff" statement made out of exasperation and wasn't a real offer.

Pride goethe before the fall.

 

It's hyped, IMO, and they're trying to make Sestak a problem by stirring up the proverbial tempest in a teapot. There is no big question. From what I read, charges of lawbreaking appear hard to support:

 

What's your evidence? Has he said as much? The job was unpaid, btw. They wanted him to stay in the House, so the job was nothing more than an advisary postition. Let's play this game.

Why should he?

An unpaid postition? You have to be kidding. That's hardly a BIG question.

 

The unpaid executive position is only one of the rumors. The other one (which Sestak won't deny) is that he was offered the Secretary of the Navy which is a paid position.

 

For some who have carped for "conclusive evidence" there sure seems to be a lot of inclusive evidence on this thread. Oh, well, I should not be surprised.

This is from the link:

Show me the money, Snook.

 

Ragusa's second link is interesting, but I'm not sure if it means the job couldn't have been a bribe, or that it necessarily was one.

 

But let's just keep on speculating, shall we? Indeed, nothing is proved or disproved, and in addition to that, said Bush advisor could be lying, or have been himself bribed. It sure is possible.

It is possible that the Rahm crowd slyly tried to bribe Sestak, but screwed up and accidentally ended up not committing a crime. Or they could have very, very cleverly tried to not-bribe Sestak ... by deliberately avoiding to meet the elements of the crime! ... Which would not make it bribery ... but something ordinary and entirely legal ... oh well ... Even if they didn't meet the elements of the crime of bribery, deep in their corrupt, black hearts they carry the intent for it, and worse! It sure is possible.

If nothing comes out of that investigation Rep. Issa is courageously demanding, that's just further proof how adept Rahm's Chicago crowd is at cover-up. It sure is possible after all

 

You're sarcasm is appreciated (only slightly), but I do think at least an independent investigation is in order. If this is all a non-issue, why did Sestack bring it up in the first place? And moreover, why did the White House take so long to respond to it? I know they had other issues on their plate, but a few quick questions among the staff and a brief press relief could have nipped this in the bud.

 

Yeah, like the biggest environmental disaster in our history? Imagine that, rather than to satisfy a bunch of republican, conservative partisans? I just can't believe that they would take so long to respond to such "pointless accusations."

 

Sestak may have mentioned the offer as part of trying to show how he was his own man rather than one who who just followed party instructions.

Political posturing of a sort when people are trying to prove they aren't simply dittoheads for the status quo, washington establishment, and on.

I don't think he mentioned it to cause Obama trouble but to try and prove himself to voters.

 

Exactly. To be an "outsider" is hip, at least this cycle.

 

There is no secret that the current administration didn't want Arlen Specter to be primaried (is that a word?) That was part of the deal when Specter switched parties and became a Democrat. The thing is, and I've mentioned this before, other than in the 80s when Reagan was in office, Pennsylvania is a blue state. It was unlikely that Specter wouldn't be primaried (I've now decided that it is a word), simply because the only reason he switched parties in the first place was he knew he couldn't win the Republican primary after supporting Obama's stimulus package. Why would Pennsylvanians want a recent Republican convert when they could have a true blue Democrat?

This sounds like something that happened entirely in the Democrat party, and should be considered typical for the inner workings of both Republicans and Democrats. Talk of impeachment seems absurd at this point - even if you ignore the fact that you cannot get even odds in Vegas of the Republicans taking over one chamber of Congress this fall - simply because the only way you can prove this order came directly from Obama would be if he incriminated himself. (And last I heard there are Constitutional provisions against such.)

 

So then why didn't Sestak clear things up when the controversy of his statements first became clear? As I said, it's going to look bad for one of the two (though it seems Rahm taking the blame may be a reasonable outcome as well).

 

Most normal people didn't think it was anything illegal, or even out of the ordinary, at least for politics, or even in business for that matter. Of course, Obama claimed that "politics as usual" were a thing of the past, but that's another matter. But then the hysterical hacks and bloggers started to run with it the story....

Blame for what? For offering an unpaid postition to a Congressman? Really? Like that has never happened before.

 

Ok, so how have you gauged the opinion of 'most normal people'? Fox, CNN, and MSNBC were running stories on it continuously. Now I won't claim that any of those three represent 'most normal people', but short of a Pew poll on the issue, I think they're the best barometer we have.

 

Hey, watch that "we" stuff...

 

To me, this is just partisan hackery and hypocrisy(sic) -- If the same thing had happened (with merely different players) when Bush was in office, the left wing would be calling for Bush's impeachment, emasculation (with a rusty hacksaw), and slow death by strangling. The right would be saying "nothing illegal, inappropriate or unethical occurred". But it happened with Obama in office, the Holy One (or the Anti-Christ, depending of your wing of choice) and so the positions are merely reversed.

According to theory, the judiciary is supposed to be neutral, and they would be the best ones to determine if any wrongdoing has actually occurred. But it has always looked to me like the judiciary is far from neutral.

 

Nah, they (we?) would be doing it for the war, or some other important stuff. To me this looks like inner-party politicking. Seriously, LKD, just how many people cared much about Rove's internal party politics, what with everything else going on? At most suppose KeithO might feature it on the "worst" segment, and only if it had been a slow week. Sure, it doesn't fit the image of Obama's political promises (he hasn't been very good keeping some of them, I'll give you that), but crime, not so much. Was it bribery when Obama changed his stance on oil drilling to accomodate Republicans? He sure didn't do it to endear himself to his base, I think we can agree to that .

It wasn't a very smart move, mind you, and I definitely don't think they should have done it for Arlen Specter of all people.

 

That was part of the "deal" when Specter made the decision to switch parties - that he'd receive the support of the White House when he ran for re-election. Now, I'm sure that deal did not specifically state that they would offer whomever his primary opponent would be an unpaid position in the Navy, and that the exact terms of the "support" were not explicit.

Specter made it clear that if he had to go it alone, he'd probably be better off taking his chances in the Republican primary.