DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on May 24, 2010, 04:34:10 PM
-
Congessman Joe Sestak claims the White House tried to bribe him out
of the Pennsylvania Democrat Senate primary but the White House,
well.....we're not sure what the White House says.
Both can't be right...so who is wrong?
You decide.
So Who Is Wrong? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJLejs_0ZR0#ws)
-
Impeachable offence?
Is it not illegal to attempt to bribe a congresscritter with a high paying and/or high ranking position, for a quid pro quo of refraining from running for a particular office?
-
Impeachable offence?
Doesn't seem out of the ordinairy to me.
Arn't a lot of Ambassadores chosen this way?
-
Chosen in order to keep them out of running for office, that they would have otherwise pursued? Care to list some examples of this relatively "ordinary" event? I'm not aware of any, personally
-
Chosen in order to keep them out of running for office, that they would have otherwise pursued? Care to list some examples of this relatively "ordinary" event? I'm not aware of any, personally
Frederick Douglass
Sent to Hati , out of sight.
(http://www.lawrence.edu/dept/student_dean/multicultural_affairs/Images%20&%20Docs/frederick-douglass.jpg)
-
What was he trying to run for?
-
What was he trying to run for?
He was loud and inconvienent.
The Republicans were radical , but not as ....
-
ummm, ok
-
Impeachable offence? Is it not illegal to attempt to bribe a congresscritter with a high paying and/or high ranking position, for a quid pro quo of refraining from running for a particular office?
The plot thickens (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=158617)
-
Exclusive:
May 26, 2010
All 7 Republicans on Senate Judiciary Committee Ask AG Holder
to Appoint Special Prosecutor to Look Into Alleged Sestak Job Offer
http://tinyurl.com/3al6tgj (http://tinyurl.com/3al6tgj)
-
If Obama is IMPEACHED over this I wonder if Biden
for the good of the Party would appoint Hillary as VP
setting her up for 2012? Cuzz will all know Biden
couldn't run for anything except for "foot-N-mouth"
disease award!
-
Expect neither Holder to do his job, nor Obama to facilitate the most transparant (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/barackobam409502.html) adminstration to do their job either. It's CYA mode now
-
It's always the cover-up (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/27/obama-improper-alleged-sestak-job-offer-official-explanation-come/) which torpedos politicians. And in this case, possibly the President
-
This doesn't hold any water (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/exclusive_white_house_asked_cl_1.html)
Even if you were to accept what the WH is saying now,
A) Why couldn't have they AND Sestak have said that from the beginning
B) Clinton has SQUAT authority to offer Sestak anything (outside of some phone #'s to some hot chicks)
Sestak is on record as saying he was OFFERED a position. What?, we don't know. By whom?, we don't know. Spokeshole Gibbs has let slip that yes there were some talks, but wouldn't go any further. Clinton doesn't fit, makes no sense to the rational mind, given both A & B
The cover-up is often far worse than the crime
-
Good luck with that (http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/Sestak%20Memorandum.pdf)
-
Gotta give them credit for circling the wagons (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/28/raw-data-sestaks-statement-white-house-report-job-offer/)
Nearly word for word as what the WH has released. Stunning similarities in play. Any bets on who's doing the best lying?
-
(http://images.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/gallery/l352ji-b78646204z.120100528094230000gelojl79.1.jpg)
-
LOL...good one SIRS!
-
Gotta give them credit for circling the wagons (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/28/raw-data-sestaks-statement-white-house-report-job-offer/)
Nearly word for word as what the WH has released. Stunning similarities in play. Any bets on who's doing the best lying?
So Is Sestak a Liar?
Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau
If the White House accounts are true, then it seems that Joe Sestak is a liar.
Asking someone to remain in the House of Representatives -- and offering them nothing but an board membership -- does not constitute the offer of a job, at least not within the meaning associated with the term by regular people.
So which is it? Is The White House lying, or was Joe Sestak?
And if Sestak lied, what does it tell us about his character that he was willing -- for nothing more than his own political gain -- to accuse unnamed perpetrators of an offense that could be construed as impeachable, if the President knew about it?
Either the "job" offered Sestak was really nothing of meaning or value -- and the candidate lied in an opportunistic attempt to mislead Pennsylvania voters -- or the job did have meaning and value . . . and The White House was trying, through Bill Clinton, to use it to bribe Sestak to get out of the race. (Update: Jack Cashill quotes Sestak's original allegations, and points out that it sure doesn't sound like he was talking about the offer of an unpaid position -- or just one contact).
My sense is that Sestak and the Obama administration are trying to slice the baloney pretty thinly here. And although they may be able to wriggle out of legal liability, the entire episode pretty well lays bare the empty cynicism of the President's campaign-era promises of change . . . unless he means "change for the worse."
IF the WH was telling the truth?? (http://townhall.com/blog/g/d662268d-b809-4bd8-9c51-17947e16be1d?comments=true&commentsSortDirection=Descending)
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/5-25-10coverupRGB20100528110631.jpg)
-
It's always the cover up (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/sestak-was-ineligible-for-job-clinton-offered-95167459.html) which gets folks in the biggest trouble
-
What if Sestak Wasn't the Only One?
Political payoffs are so commonplace in Washington that I was initially unable to muster an appropriate level of outrage at hearing that Rep. Joe Sestak had accused the Obama administration of offering him a job in exchange for his withdrawal from the Pennsylvania Democratic senatorial primary.
Until, that is, I heard President Barack Obama's senior advisor David Axelrod explain to CNN's John King that though there was "no evidence" (hey, if the administration's senior advisor claims there is no evidence we should move along) if such an offer were made, it would constitute "a serious breach of the law."
If the Democratic Party's choice for the Senate in Pennsylvania is a fabulist -- as Axelrod is effectively saying -- why does Sestak's story sound so familiar to one in the Democratic Senate primary in Colorado?
In a September 2009 article headlined "D.C. job alleged as attempt to deter Romanoff," the Denver Post's Michael Riley reported that Andrew Romanoff, former speaker of the Colorado House, then still contemplating a run again against the governor-installed administration-sanctioned foot solider Michael Bennet, received an "unexpected communication" from a renowned kingmaker in Washington.
"Jim Messina, President Barack Obama's deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop," wrote Riley at the time, "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."
Apparently, if you're running against the establishment's preference, a communication from Messina should not be entirely unexpected.
Shortly before Riley's thoroughly sourced piece ran, my colleague, Denver Post editorial board member Chuck Plunkett, asked Romanoff if he had been offered a position within the administration. The answer was "no." But did the White House ever "chat" or "suggest" that a job might perhaps open up if, for whatever reason, Romanoff decided not to run? (Romanoff's campaign did not return my call.)
It should be noted there are differences between the Romanoff and Sestak cases.
One: Romanoff, it seems, was not directly offered a position.
Two: Romanoff was not yet officially a candidate when the administration was not offering him a position.
Does it matter? After reading the law in question (you see the entire thing online by searching for: "US Code -- Section 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity"), it is clear that any offer of a job "directly or indirectly ... to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity ... in connection with any general or special election to any political office,or in connection with any primary election" is an illegal act.
Conceivably, the United States Agency for International Development was frantically hunting for someone with Romanoff's unique work and life experiences exactly at the time everyone in Colorado knew he was contemplating a challenge of the largely unknown Bennet. Or, perhaps, Romanoff, once a moderate liberal and now running to the populist left, was exactly the kind of recognized contender that could cause trouble for an untested candidate.
You might be able to ignore Sestak, but another similar plot line makes the story far more plausibility.
None of this is exactly shocking stuff -- 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. Axlerod says it's a breach of law.
Not going away that fast (http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidHarsanyi/2010/05/28/what_if_sestak_wasnt_the_only_one)