• 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

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

Let me see if I have this straight..... you posted a DOJ document from the last administration and pretended it was about this scandal.... is that right? :shock:
 
Yes I know bush is retired, and he did the same thing while in office, so why did you forget those things he did in order to bash Obama?
Is it because he is one of you, and not a democrat?
 
This smells bad.

1. Took forever to get these people to come up with an explanation.
2. Sestak has told a different story repeatedly, about a high profile job from the WH.
3. Having a meeting with Felonius Slick yesterday??? Involving Slick in administration busines????????
Felonius Slick Willy?... the guy who made "depends what the meaning of "is" is world famous? Proven perjurer?
LOL...

And Obama claimed to have superior judgment?

Sestak, no political pro erred with honesty and unleashed the fact ObamaRhama Administration goofed big time.

They just made it worse.

Even if Eric Americans are Cowards Holder doesn't move, the state of Pennsylvania and Virginia can.
Both Attorney Generals could call for a Grand Jury.
Both AG's are republicans.

.
 
Last edited:
Yes I know bush is retired, and he did the same thing while in office, so why did you forget those things he did in order to bash Obama?
Is it because he is one of you, and not a democrat?

Bush offered a influential position to a Congress critter to drop out of a Senate race on a quid pro quo basis? Have a link for that?
 
absolutely. that DOJ document addressed the provisions of law and what should be found prosecutable
under those guidelines, this situation is not found a prosecutable offense
but read the guidelines for yourself: Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses
 
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.

And naturally you were there and heard this exchange?

Yeah right, glad we have that settled.
 
Yes I know bush is retired, and he did the same thing while in office, so why did you forget those things he did in order to bash Obama?
Is it because he is one of you, and not a democrat?

IF Bush had done this, the Libs would have hauled out the long knives.


Way Back in Feb Sestak blew the lid off this thing not knowing what he had done.
Sestak: White House Offered Job To Keep Me Out Of Race. White House Denies It.

Notice the initial reporting does not mention a crime?
That came after someone who knows noticed.

This just got bigger.
Much bigger.

At a bare minimum Sestak is political toast in PA (Ed Randell knows this). He is no longer credible. Clinton never was. Obama now smells like Clinton.

.
 
Last edited:
In actuality - it's been months --- since February. If it was just Bill - and it was no big deal, why not release this any other Friday between then and now? I don't believe it was Clinton. I think the WH and Sestak got their story straight over the last few days and Bill said he'd be fine stepping up to being involved. I mean, what can we do to him - a former President? No the WH staff are off the hook as it wasn't directly between the WH and Sestak, and if a special prosecutor is appointed, all Sestak has to do is say "Sorry, I misunderstood" and apologize and all is forgiven. Of course, this is all speculation... but I'd like to see a SP appointed and a full and thorough investigation indentify exactly what happened and who spoke to who and what was promised or not promised.
 
Yes I know bush is retired, and he did the same thing while in office, so why did you forget those things he did in order to bash Obama?
Is it because he is one of you, and not a democrat?
The difference is that the items you cite concerning Bush and Reagan are not actions takien in concert with the preferred result of an electiuon.
 
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

I think it is pretty easy to connect-the-dots.
Stesak made it so easy even Obama could do it... and that is the problem.

From the guy who broke the story: Larry Kane.
The Larry Kane Report
MAY 28,2010
“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.”

I prepared for the program with an outline of questions. But on that Thursday I was having a very hectic day. I was a little overwhelmed with work. I forgot to put the question in my outline. Suddenly, with 90 seconds left, I remembered!

The news business can have moments that are so unpredictable. I knew the questionwas a good one, based on some really good sources, but I was flabbergasted when Sestak said “Yes.” There was no hesitation. No delay. He just said, “Yes.”

As the Congressman left the building, there was an obvious dilemma. The show wouldn’t are till Sunday the 21st. The story could be big. I called Comcast executes. With their blessing, I broke the story with an audio interview on KYW Newsradio. But first there was work to do. I needed a White House response.
 
Last edited:
the public integrity folks at DOJ have concluded that this situation does not meet the guidelines for a case worthy of prosecution

eric holder's doj?

LOL!
 
Even if Eric Americans are Cowards Holder doesn't move, the state of Pennsylvania and Virginia can.
Both Attorney Generals could call for a Grand Jury.
Both AG's are republicans.

interesting, i did not know, thanks
 
If it was just Bill - and it was no big deal, why not release this any other Friday between then and now?

a very good question, body language gives it all away
 
The difference is that the items you cite concerning Bush and Reagan are not actions takien in concert with the preferred result of an electiuon.

Yeah they are, and the fact Sestake is just rubbing this information in right know was only, because he had lost. Funny, how that happens.... However the things I did site was in fact party to the fact they were threatening to judge what he did in his eight years in office.

AND the fact they were trying to move districts in order to change election outcomes, and how is that not a preferred result of a election?
 
Last edited:
Let the spinning begin!

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 think that I put it in my first post the bush apoints Nomatiee with out going throgh congress
FALSIFYING ACCOUNTS OF U.S. TROOP DEATHS AND INJURIES FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES

[video]http://impeachment.kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=54&Itemid=43[/video]

t r u t h o u t | The Biggest Election Story Not on Your TV
Just diffrent things


So, by your logic, someone doing something wrong once apon a time and getting away with it, equates with a person doing something wrong now, and this new person should get a pass?

There are thousands of murderers in prison right now who will be very glad to know this.
 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/mediawatch/Sestak Memorandum.pdf

this white house is so stupid

its own lawyers write, "options for executive branch service were raised"

"efforts were made in june and july of 2009 to determine whether congressman sestak would be interested in service on a presidential or other senior executive branch advisory board"

"which would avoid a divisive senate primary"

exactly

june AND july?

clinton made TWO phone calls?

it doesn't add up, it's so disproportional

to include a FORMER PRESIDENT in a job offer, er, discussion of options, for a postion with no power, a glorified internship?

why would an ADMIRAL give up a shot at the SENATE to serve on an ADVISORY BOARD?

it's LOL! material

"the advisory positions discussed with congressman sestak, while important to the administration, would have been uncompensated," stresses counsel

again...

wapo reports that president clinton discussed OPTIONS for UNPAID work of ADVISORY nature to AVOID A DIVISIVE PRIMARY "on behalf of chief of staff rahm"

washingtonpost.com

"and in colorado former state house speaker andrew romanoff has said that [deputy chief of staff jim] messina offered him an administration job if he dropped out of his primary campaign against michael bennet," the former supt of denver's public school system (an education liberal) who was leapfrogged ahead of establishment western dems in the rocky mountain state when president pie-in-the-face pulled up ken salazar to screw up interior

underlying all the legalese, always, is sestak's candid and clear assertion, many times repeated, that HE WAS OFFERED A JOB TO QUIT THE PRIMARY

the legalities will go nowhere in washington, what with hasan's honey, holder, handling the doj, what with roadblock reid running senate

but it exposes as preposterous the president's pretty pictures of hope and any kind of change honest folks can believe in

this little incident is BUSINESS AS USUAL at its ugliest worst

not good

especially in THIS particular climate

but more, obtuse obama, as always, comes off as a fool, his admin's handling of this so clumsily incompetent, a political naif

it's a BLAGO move

the prez is a phony, he's arrogant, and he's not very bright

sorry
 
Last edited:
NOT fox news:

Clinton 'whiff of scandal' returns - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Bill Clinton’s picture is again a fixture on cable news.

Republicans are sternly demanding a special prosecutor.

And legal commentators are bickering over the finer points of federal criminal statutes on bribery and graft.

It feels like 1997—but it’s 2010. And Barack Obama can’t be happy.

The White House’s confirmation Friday that it enlisted former President Bill Clinton in an effort to get Rep. Joe Sestak out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary has sent the regular players in Washington’s scandal industry to their battle stations – to pick over the very sort of insider special dealing that Obama had promised to make a thing of the past.

“That’s not the image he wants to project right now with all the things that are going on,” said Mark Rozell, a George Mason University professor who has written at length on the Clinton-era scandals.

The use of Clinton as the conduit to offer Sestak an advisory board position is like catnip for cable television and for Republicans who have plenty of experience painting the former president as ethically challenged.

“I’m sure there’s substantial precedent for an administration to subtly suggest to a potential candidate, ‘Maybe you’d like to step aside.’ But [the fact that] this controversy involves a former president who just happens to be married to a member of his Cabinet just moves this to a whole different level,” Rozell said. “Clinton’s administration was involved in a number of ethics controversies and investigations just like this……This looks like a rookie administration type of mistake.”

A good part of Obama’s appeal to the Democratic electorate in 2008 was that he didn’t carry the baggage of scandal that rival Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill did. Obama and his aides actively sought to stoke that perception by repeatedly insisting on full transparency from the Clinton camp and making pointed legislative proposals like mandating disclosure of all donations to presidential libraries and all lobbying for presidential pardons.

At the time the Clintons maintained that the “whiff-of-scandal” standard was deeply unfair when there was no substance to many of the charges leveled during the Clinton years. They also grumbled that Obama was aligning himself with right-wingers who built an industry out of accusing the Clintons of everything ranging from real estate scams to murder.

Now, Obama aides find themselves complaining that their White House is being tarred by unsubstantiated allegations and erroneous legal conclusions.

Part of the White House’s defense Friday was to claim, in essence, that offering administration posts to get a candidate out of a primary race is politics as usual. “There have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior Administrations—both Democratic and Republican, and motivated by the same goals—discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaign for public office,” White House counsel Bob Bauer wrote in a brief memo released Friday. “Such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements.”
 
So, by your logic, someone doing something wrong once apon a time and getting away with it, equates with a person doing something wrong now, and this new person should get a pass?

There are thousands of murderers in prison right now who will be very glad to know this.

Nope, I just think nothing was done wrong, if the investigation team say no law was broken. I tend to believe the FBI over some idiot who is sore for losing an election. Plus the fact the people allowed Bush to get away with it, because they were in fear of being arrested.
 
Last edited:
smaller and smaller they shrink
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom