DebateGate

Sestak says federal job was offered to quit race
Not so, says the White House
By Thomas Fitzgerald

INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

Rep. Joe Sestak (D., Pa.) said yesterday that the White House offered him a federal job in an effort to dissuade him from challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in the state's Democratic primary.

The disclosure came during an afternoon taping of Larry Kane: Voice of Reason, a Sunday news-analysis show on the Comcast Network. Sestak would not elaborate on the circumstances and seemed chagrined after blurting out "yes" to veteran news anchor Kane's direct question.

"Was it secretary of the Navy?" Kane asked.

"No comment," Sestak said.

"Was it [the job] high-ranking?" Kane asked. Sestak said yes, but added that he would "never leave" the Senate race for a deal.

A White House spokesman this morning strongly denied an offer had been made to Sestak. Before the spokesman issued the denial, a senior Pennsylvania Democrat said Sestak's account was met with anger by White House officials yesterday.

After yesterday's taping, Sestak said he recalled the White House offer coming in July, as he was preparing to formally announce his Senate candidacy in August. He declined to identify who spoke to him or the job under discussion. Sestak also would not say whether the person who approached him worked for the administration or was an intermediary for the offer.

"I'm not going to say who or how and what was offered," Sestak said in an interview. "I don't feel it's appropriate to go beyond what I said," because the conversation was confidential.

Sestak, 58, a retired Navy admiral, has said that some Pennsylvania Democratic leaders have tried to entice him to drop his campaign with promises of support for other offices in the future. He also has said that Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, urged him to run when Specter was still a Republican, then tried to force him out after Specter switched parties.

But Sestak has brushed aside talk of White House pressure.

"He asked me the question, and I had to answer it honestly," Sestak said of his exchange with Kane. Sestak said he had declined the job offer immediately and added, "The person said, 'I knew you'd say that.' "

It's no secret that leading Democrats are backing Specter, a five-term incumbent who switched from the GOP last spring, soon after providing the critical vote for President Obama's $787 billion stimulus program.

Obama endorsed Specter at the White House and has raised money for him. Gov. Rendell has been vocal in calling Sestak's challenge harmful to the party, as has state chairman T.J. Rooney.

Party leaders are worried that an expensive primary could weaken an incumbent Democratic senator in what is shaping up to be a Republican year, and also about the possibility of losing the House seat that Sestak won in 2006. He is only the second Democrat since the Civil War to represent the Delaware County-centered Seventh District.

An added concern: possibly losing the seat in Harrisburg occupied by the leading Democratic candidate to replace Sestak in Congress, State Rep. Bryan Lentz. Democrats have a 104-99 majority in the state House; control of the chamber is crucial with Pennsylvania expected to lose a congressional district next year in the reapportionment that follows the census.

Still, Sestak's account was startling.

"Clearly, the offers are made," said Ross Baker, a Rutgers University political science professor who specializes in Congress. "When a White House wants to preempt a challenge, they'll dangle something. But it is almost never uttered."

In addition, Baker said, conversations in such cases are nuanced, and savvy operators know not to use explicit quid pro quo language.

He said he could not, off hand, think of another instance in which a candidate has divulged an approach from White House officials. Baker said that, in theory, that might be an advantageous gambit for a candidate who, like Sestak, is positioning his campaign as an outsider and wants to demonstrate that "the big guys" are worried about the challenge.

Nachama Soloveichik, spokeswoman for former Rep. Pat Toomey, the leading GOP candidate for the Senate seat, said she had no information on Sestak's story but added: "It's just like Arlen Specter to get an insider Washington deal to try to save his political career."

Christopher Nicholas, Specter's campaign manager, declined to comment on the report or the Toomey campaign comment.

Last week, after Sestak received nominating petitions for the House from the Pennsylvania secretary of state, talk buzzed in political circles that he would give up the Senate race and run for reelection.

He says he is running only for the Senate, and volunteers are circulating nominating petitions for that office.

Legally, Sestak could circulate two sets of petitions, and experts say there is no prohibition on running for two offices simultaneously.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/84755387.html

There are pros and cons, but this suspect certainly stands out more than all the others.

http://www.zodiackiller.com/SuspectGaikowski.html

Though, Obama is under 50% against any Republican which means they would all beat him.

--------------

Mike Huckabee has a 45-44 advantage over Obama, aided largely by a 44-38 lead with independents. There continues to be no evidence of any negative fallout for Huckabee after murders of police officers committed by an ex-Arkansas inmate whose sentence he had commuted. His 35/29 favorability breakdown is actually slightly better than it was in November before that incident.

Mitt Romney does the next best, trailing Obama 44-42. His favorability is 36/32, and he?s the most popular Republican among independents (41/32). Romney actually matches Huckabee with GOP voters this month and gets over 50%, ending a trend in his numbers that had seemed to spell difficulty for snagging a Republican nomination.

Sarah Palin trails Obama 49-41 largely because she loses 14% of the Republican vote to him, making her the only one of the GOP candidates we tested who Obama could get double digit crossover support against. At the same time Palin continues to be the most well liked potential GOP candidate within her party- at 71% favorability. Her problem appears to be that the Republicans who don?t care for her will go so far as to vote for Obama instead of her.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/01/2012-presidential-poll.html

Edwards Admits Paternity

In a statement timed to preempt a new book by a former aide, John Edwards admitted paternity of a daughter with former mistress Rielle Hunter, despite his previous denials.

"I am Quinn's father. I will do everything in my power to provide her with the love and support she deserves. I have been able to spend time with her during the past year and trust that future efforts to show her the love and affection she deserves can be done privately and in peace."

"It was wrong for me ever to deny she was my daughter and hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me. I have been providing financial support for Quinn and have reached an agreement with her mother to continue providing support in the future."

"To all those I have disappointed and hurt, these words will never be enough, but I am truly sorry."

Bill Clinton: If We Elect Scott Brown, the Earthquake Wins   [Robert Costa]



BOSTON?In a conversation with National Review Online, former president Bill Clinton defended his appearance today at a rally for Democrat Martha Coakley while Haiti is recovering from Tuesday?s earthquake. When I told him that some had been critical of his decision to stump for Coakley while hundreds of thousands are still trapped under rubble, he responded with annoyance: ?Who?? he challenged, ?who is criticizing me? It?s your problem if you can?t see how these things aren?t mutually exclusive.? Electing Coakley, he said, will ?help lead to good governance? that will support Haiti while it rebuilds. When Congressman Ed Markey told Clinton that I worked for National Review, Clinton concluded with this: ?See, it's you guys who are saying this stuff, I don't hear it.? With that, he jumped in his SUV, on his way to Worcester for another rally. Haiti, it seems, can wait.

Link

No, Really, How Can Senators Vote for Holder?

Jen Rubin, looking over the Marc Rich scandal, asks whether senators can vote to confirm a potential attorney general who lied to Congress ? considering the outrage Alberto Gonzales generated.

But it's not just from back then. Holder just submitted biographical forms that conveniently omitted two months of work he did for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004. Does anyone believe that Holder just happened to forget this? Does anyone think that Holder somehow managed to not see Blagojevich's name in the news lately, and thus didn't think back to the time that Pay-Rod selected him to be "special investigator to the Illinois Gaming Board"?

Notice this golden quote in the Chicago Sun Times:

"The concern was Holder had a bias to do whatever Blagojevich wanted, which was to give the casino to Rosemont," said Jim Wagner, who was a top Chicago FBI agent before he joined the Gaming Board, from which he retired in December 2005. "We all believed the only reason Holder was coming in was to fashion an investigation that would manipulate the casino into Rosemont."

This is the guy the president-elect wants to be the top law-enforcement officer in the country?

Cowboy up, Senators. When that first hearing starts on January 15, that's your shot to get answers.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDEyMWZhODcwNjg5NDMwZGMwMzA1YmMxNWI5YzEwNDc=

Obama?s justice nominee more involved in Rich pardon than backers acknowledge
December 2, 2008
By Eric Lichtblau and David Johnston

In the much praised career of Eric H. Holder Jr., President-elect Barack Obama?s choice to be attorney general, there is one notable blemish: Mr. Holder?s role in the 2001 pardon of Marc Rich, a billionaire financier who had fled the country rather than face federal tax evasion charges.


Mr. Holder?s supporters portray him as having been a relatively uninvolved bystander caught in a Clinton-era controversy, the remarkable granting of a last-minute pardon by President Bill Clinton to a fugitive from justice. But interviews and an examination of Congressional records show that Mr. Holder, who at the time of the pardon was the deputy attorney general, was more deeply involved in the Rich pardon than his supporters acknowledge.

Mr. Holder had more than a half-dozen contacts with Mr. Rich?s lawyers over 15 months, including phone calls, e-mail and memorandums that helped keep alive Mr. Rich?s prospects for a legal resolution to his case. And Mr. Holder?s final opinion on the matter ? a recommendation to the White House on the eve of the pardon that he was ?neutral, leaning toward? favorable ? helped ensure that Mr. Clinton signed the pardon despite objections from other senior staff members, participants said.


He let himself be drawn into the case by politically influential advocates, the review of the case shows, bypassing the usual Justice Department channels for reviewing pardon applications and infuriating prosecutors in New York who had brought the initial charges against Mr. Rich and his business partner.

Most perplexing to Justice Department allies was that Mr. Holder, by his own admission, involved himself in the discussions without a full briefing from his own prosecutors about the facts of the case, according to an associate of Mr. Holder who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Reid Weingarten, a lawyer for Mr. Holder, said that Mr. Holder had done nothing improper in his handling of the Rich matter and that conversations about it were routine and largely insignificant, in part because he assumed that Mr. Rich?s lawyer, Jack Quinn, was going through normal pardon channels.

?Mr. Holder assumed that this was all being handled in the normal course,? Mr. Weingarten said, adding, ?There?s no question that Quinn played him and it was astute by Quinn because he did catch Eric unawares.?

By all accounts, Mr. Holder?s role in the affair represents the biggest misstep of his career, and Mr. Obama?s aides focused on the issue before Mr. Holder was selected. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee were consulted to gauge whether the pardon would prove an insurmountable hurdle.

Some Republicans in Congress are eager to revisit the Rich pardon, which was investigated at length in 2001 both by Congress and by a grand jury amid a public clamor that was fueled by hefty donations that Mr. Rich?s former wife had made to Mr. Clinton?s presidential library and to Democratic causes. Critics of the pardon also seized on reports from American intelligence officials that Mr. Rich?s oil-and-commodities company had done business with Iran, Iraq and other so-called rogue states.

?Marc Rich was a fugitive for nearly two decades, wanted by the federal government for fraud and tax evasion,? Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said Monday after the nomination was announced. Referring to Mr. Holder?s actions, Mr. Smith added, ?If a Republican official had engaged in this kind of activity, he would never receive Senate confirmation.?

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview on Monday that Mr. Holder?s role in the Rich pardon would be ?a big question? at his Senate confirmation hearing.

But for Mr. Holder, his role in the Rich issue actually began more than two years before the end of the Clinton administration, almost by happenstance. At a corporate dinner in November 1998, Mr. Holder was seated at a table with a public-relations executive named Gershon Kekst, who had been trying to help Mr. Rich resolve his legal troubles.

When Mr. Kekst learned that his dinner companion was the deputy attorney general, he proceeded to bring up the case of an unnamed acquaintance who had been ?improperly indicted by an overzealous prosecutor,? according to the Congressional inquiry.

A person in that situation, Mr. Holder advised, should ?hire a lawyer who knows the process, he comes to me, we work it out.? Mr. Kekst wanted to know if Mr. Holder could suggest a lawyer. Mr. Holder pointed to a former White House counsel sitting nearby. ?There?s Jack Quinn,? he said. ?He?s a perfect example.?

Months later, Mr. Rich?s advisers settled on Mr. Quinn to lead the legal efforts, which stemmed from Mr. Rich?s indictment in 1983 on charges that he evaded taxes on tens of millions of dollars in revenue. At the time, it was the biggest tax fraud case in American history. He fled to Switzerland while the investigation against him was pending.

Mr. Quinn and his legal team sought to make the case that Mr. Rich and his partner, Pincus Green, had been wrongly prosecuted by the office of Rudolph W. Giuliani, who was the United States attorney in Manhattan at the time of the indictment, and that the charges against them should best have been treated as a civil matter, not a criminal one.

One of the first people Mr. Quinn contacted was Mr. Holder, his former colleague. Mr. Quinn wanted his help in interceding with prosecutors in Manhattan, and the two men had several conversations about the topic beginning in October 1999.

Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York were unwilling to negotiate with Mr. Rich?s lawyers while he remained a fugitive. Mr. Holder told Mr. Quinn in one phone call in November 1999 that he believed the prosecutors? refusal to meet with the Rich lawyer was ?ridiculous,? according to notes by Mr. Quinn obtained by House government reform committee investigators as part of a three-volume report on Mr. Clinton?s pardons.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

In February 2000, Mr. Quinn sent Mr. Holder a memorandum entitled ?Why D.O.J. Should Review the Marc Rich Indictment.? About a month later, Mr. Holder spoke with Mr. Quinn again and told him that ?we?re all sympathetic? and that the legal ?equities? in the issue were ?on your side.? Pressed to explain the remark when he appeared before Congress a year later, Mr. Holder said that he meant only that he thought it was ?unreasonable? for prosecutors in Manhattan not to meet with Mr. Rich?s lawyers and that he was not intending to assess the merits of the case.

By the fall of 2000, efforts to re-open the criminal case were dead, and Mr. Rich?s lawyers had moved on to the idea of a pardon.

Again, Mr. Quinn turned to Mr. Holder. On Nov. 21, 2000, at the close of a meeting on a separate topic, Mr. Quinn took Mr. Holder aside, told him he was planning on filing a lengthy pardon petition with the White House and asked whether the White House should contact Mr. Holder for his opinion, according to Mr. Quinn?s account. (Mr. Holder said he did not remember the conversation but did not dispute the account.)

In a separate e-mail message that Mr. Quinn sent three days before that to other members of the Rich team, under the topic ?Eric,? he wrote: ?Spoke to him last evening. Says to go straight to W.H. Also says timing is good.?

For the next months, Mr. Rich?s team pressed ahead with the pardon, soliciting foreign leaders from Spain, Israel and elsewhere to speak to the White House about Mr. Rich?s philanthropic work.

Still, many White House officials remained opposed to the idea because of the precedent it would set to pardon a fugitive. Prosecutors in New York would ?howl,? Mr. Holder told Mr. Quinn.

On Jan. 19, 2001, Mr. Quinn called Mr. Holder and let him know that the White House would be contacting him for his recommendation on the pardon, which he said was receiving ?serious consideration.? Mr. Holder told him that he did not have a personal problem with the pardon, and Mr. Quinn quickly passed on the gist of the conversation to the White House.

Minutes later, Mr. Holder received a call from Beth Nolan, the White House counsel, who had opposed the pardon idea and was surprised to hear that Mr. Holder apparently felt differently.

Mr. Holder, according to Ms. Nolan?s testimony, told her that if the Israelis were in fact pushing for the pardon, he would find that ?persuasive? and would be ?neutral leaning toward? favorable.

Mr. Holder told Congressional investigators that he assumed the pardon was going to be rejected and that his comments were not intended to push it through. ?I was ?neutral? because I didn?t have a basis to make a determination,? he testified.

But investigators for the House government reform committee, in a final report in 2002, concluded that Mr. Holder?s input on Jan. 19, 2001, had a ?significant impact? in giving the Justice Department?s imprimatur, even though no formal review was conducted by the department?s pardon office. The next day, Mr. Clinton signed the pardon, setting off the final controversy of his terms. The office normally reviews all clemency applications.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28009028/

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3IAjphhw6E[/youtube]