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

zimmer said:

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

.

Click to expand...

The only facts that matter to Hazlnut, Deuce and others parroting the WH line, is that it's the WH line.

They CANNOT BRING themselves to read the excerpt that you posted with a critical... or hell even just a curious eye because the Sestak comments do not, cannot jive with the Obama story put out Friday.

And they are far too reliant on being told HOW to think and WHAT to think to consider any evidence that contradicts the official WH story.


I'd love to believe the "Bill asked him for us in an offhand way" but Sestak's initial comments, and all the way up to Friday's big release by the Obama WH do not match.
So either Sestak is a raving lunatic, or the WH is lying. Either way, it's worth the effort to find the truth. 3 star Admirals generally have a good grasp on the facts, but it appears he either DID NOT, or he's rolled over and is ethically compromised by parroting their story.

ADMIRAL sestak would have to be as small minded as obama's supporters to try to foist off on the voters of pennsylvania a discussion of OPTIONS for ADVISORY positions that are UNPAID as a HI RANKING job OFFER dangled BY THE WHITE HOUSE in RETURN for his dropping out of the senate primary

ADMIRAL sestak cannot possibly be that petty

ie, no independent thinker could possibly believe barrister bauer's blarney

"we discussed options about the admiral joining an advisory board in a voluntary capacity to avoid a potentially divisive primary..."

LOL!

Legal Ethics Forum: Joe Sestak

I thought this was interesting to say the least. He is saying that it isn't a bribe, but just politics as usual. I that this person does quite well in telling his arrangement in a non biased way.

. I would prefer if the White House were to stay out of Democratic primaries and focus on the tasks at hand. Then again, President Bush occasionally intervened in Republican primaries (including on behalf of Senator Specter in 2004). The less partisan politics in the White House the better (I would like to see the President abolish the White House Office of Political Affairs). This, however, is nothing new and it hardly rises to the level of a major ethics controversy.

Click to expand...

I also found this part a little bit more interesting, because of the bolder part I was young during the bush years, so I'm not sure, if this happen, or not thought

Legal Ethics Forum: Congressman Issa's Letter re: Sestak

Dezaad said:

Ok, partisans hacks:

Click to expand...

Pot meet kettle.

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.

Click to expand...

How about commenting on the actual law?

Could just one liberal argue that they didn't break this law and why?

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

texmaster said:

Could just one liberal argue that they didn't break this law and why?

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

Click to expand...

third time to post this. maybe this will be the charm:

As with Section 606, the Criminal Division believes that Sections 600 and 601 were not intended to reach the consideration of political factors in the hiring or termination of the small category of senior public employees who perform policymaking or confidential duties for elected officials of federal, state, or local governments. With respect to such employees, a degree of political loyalty may be considered a necessary aspect of competent performance.

Click to expand...

Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses

page 134 of the linked document to read the discussion of section 600

tell it to axelrod

justabubba said:

third time to post this. maybe this will be the charm:

Click to expand...

It won't, even the 3,000th time won't simply because you're not a credible source. Your long document link is fine but reading a document and apply Title 18, section 26 legally after all the facts are identified is what's needed. You continuing to throw hundreds of pages of a document as some sort of empirical proof of your view, which is btw - the WH is INNOCENT... means bupkus. :shrug:

I don't know if Congressman Sestek's comments on this issue had been posted previously or not, but it can be read at the end of this linked article. Nonetheless, even Sestek says no wrong-doing was committed by the White House via former President Clinton making such an offer, per this New York Post article covering the matter.

“If there was anything wrong with this I would have reported it,” Sestak said.

Read more: Bill Clinton suggested Joe Sestak he could have unpaid role if he dropped out of race - NYPOST.com

Click to expand...

Like I said in my previous post, it's symantics, but there is a difference between promising someone a position and making an offer for same where no obvious or tangible benefits whatsoever for taking said position. Yes, it's politics as usual and that's what's so troubling about this situation coming from an Administration that says it wants to end such corrupt or questionable practises in Washington, DC. But despite the look of unethical behavior, truth be told no law has been broken here.

justabubba said:

third time to post this. maybe this will be the charm:

Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses

page 134 of the linked document to read the discussion of section 600

Click to expand...

Did you even read who wrote that? Its an opinion nothing more. Its not written by any judge ruling on the law.


Try again Bubba.

texmaster said:

Did you even read who wrote that? Its an opinion nothing more. Its not written by any judge ruling on the law.


Try again Bubba.

Click to expand...

it's the standard operating procedure for the department of justice (as written in 2007, during the dubya bin lyin regime)

first there is the law, as established by congress
then there is the Code of Federal Regulations which define the regulations under which that law will be implemented
then there is the Standard Operating Procedures as a guideline for the agency charged with implementation of the law and the regulations

what i have shared with you - for the third time - is the segment of the Standard Operating Procedures which describes why this offer of a federal position is not one which DOJ would find a violation of the law

Seems an awful lot like Watergate.

Erod said:

Seems an awful lot like Watergate.

Click to expand...

how so?
.....

so once again retards, I mean members of congress & DP are excusing bad behaviour by pointing to past bad behaviour? Really? Does it matter if some other douchebag committed murder.

Just because OJ got away with it, does not make murder OK </debate>

After reading the delusional, apologist posts from our lefty comrades staunchly defending those forwarding their collectivist dreams, I am convinced Obama could anally rape their mothers, and they'd blame their mothers for dressing too seductively.

webrockk said:

After reading the delusional, apologist posts from our lefty comrades staunchly defending those forwarding their collectivist dreams, I am convinced Obama could anally rape their mothers, and they'd blame their mothers for dressing too seductively.

Click to expand...

I said, without any disgust regarding B.O., that teh left had set such high and lofty goals for The One, he was destined to be a one termer and a failure, solely because no matter how good Obama was, he could not live up to the hype. He was doomed to fail before he was elected. Which is sad for the historic First non-white-male President. But i do believe that to be true. Obama could have done everything right, although he has not, and he still could not have met the expectations the LEFT laid at his feet.

SAD in a way.

DeeJayH said:

I said, without any disgust regarding B.O., that teh left had set such high and lofty goals for The One, he was destined to be a one termer and a failure, solely because no matter how good Obama was, he could not live up to the hype. He was doomed to fail before he was elected. Which is sad for the historic First non-white-male President. But i do believe that to be true. Obama could have done everything right, although he has not, and he still could not have met the expectations the LEFT laid at his feet.

SAD in a way.

Click to expand...

Anything short of complete social and economic "justice".... funded by those other than themselves.... will always disappoint leftist's. The delusions they held (hold) is that Obama would (will) bring such to raptuous fruition, and those that actually pay the freight would (will) simply roll over without a fight.

Here is something to rattle around in your brains:

Why would a president in power ask a former president to offer a candidate in a Senate race, a non-profit job to pull-out? Does he not have enough staffers to accomplish any such lowly task? Not just any President mind you, but a guy he was nervous about, and for good reason, as Cliton is a perjurer and is the definition of oily.

Where has former POTUS done this in the past?

In the end it really does not matter because they admitted to a job offer and the Kane/Sestak interview reveals it was a high level job offered from the White House.

.

I'm trying to find a link to it, but Issa was on Fox and made a comment that Sestak couldn't be on a Commission like the one claimed and also be a member of the House.

Anyone hear something like that or did I mishear him?

MrVicchio said:

I'm trying to find a link to it, but Issa was on Fox and made a comment that Sestak couldn't be on a Commission like the one claimed and also be a member of the House.

Anyone hear something like that or did I mishear him?

Click to expand...

That would be interesting.

In 2005 Axelrod wrote an article defending the type of behavior exhibited by Team Obama.
The apple doesn't fall far from the thug's tree as they say in Chicago.

But now that they took the boy out of Chicago, they also took Chicago out of the boy??? Riiiiiiiiiight...

Link to the article is here:A Well-oiled Machine - Chicago Tribune

I would like a Patrick Fitzgerald type prosecutor look into this. Someone that is like a rabid Pit Bull. Jaws locked on, and unwilling to let go until he has satisfied his thirst for flesh and blood... or... using Obama Administration terminology... we should have someone keep their boot on the neck of the administration until we get answers.

All the answers.
Until this felony is cleaned up.

What's that saying about goose and gander?

And the following video will be enough to make the Democrats puke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJLejs_0ZR0&feature=player_embedded#!

.

MrVicchio said:

I'm trying to find a link to it, but Issa was on Fox and made a comment that Sestak couldn't be on a Commission like the one claimed and also be a member of the House.

Anyone hear something like that or did I mishear him?

Click to expand...

Here you go Vic, with Ed Rendell on FOXNEWS Sunday:

The Skit starts at 1:20. Rendell first to bat.

Sestak's bit starts at 3:00

Sestak's money shot comes around the 3:50 mark... should watch the bit before with Rendell, he tries, but only serves to show how true professionals handle such situations.

Had to howl... CLINTON signed the law into effect... ROTLMFAO...

YouTube - RepDarrellIssa's Channel

zimmer said:

Here you go Vic, with Ed Rendell on FOXNEWS Sunday:

The Skit starts at 1:20. Rendell first to bat.

Sestak's bit starts at 3:00

Sestak's money shot comes around the 3:50 mark... should watch the bit before with Rendell, he tries, but only serves to show how true professionals handle such situations.

Had to howl... CLINTON signed the law into effect... ROTLMFAO...

YouTube - RepDarrellIssa's Channel

Click to expand...

I had a good chuckle at Rendell's comment about Obama bringing a new level of ethics to Washington - as being unquestionable. However, let's just bulletize some not so good things that have occurred.

- Sestak initially went on record in February 2010 that he was "offered a job" by someone in the White House to not run for Senate
- Gibbs for the next month had no comment when asked repetedly about it
- Sestak was asked then numerous times in April - May and affirmed his initial affirmative response and characterized it as "honest"
- Finally about a week ago, Obama was asked at his first press conference in 305 days since taking office, that the White House staff will respond
- The response identified that Bill Clinton as an intermediary from Rham Emmanuel, proposed a non-paying appointed job to Sestak in what Sestak claims was a 30-50 second phone call.
- It turns out that if true, Clinton's offer was invalid as Sestak could not take that position due to the bill that Bill Clinton himself signed when he was President making the offer invalid

This just doesn't pass the smell test and I believe - there is enough smoke here to warrant a full and independent investigation. Why offer Sestak a job he couldn't take? Why offer him an "unpaid" job? Was Bill Clinton REALLY involved or was he brought in at the last minute to divert attention from the White House? What was said at the meeting between Obama and Clinton just days before the WH release information on the Sestak offer?

What I don't understand is -- there were independent investigations with Bush - ie., the Valerie Plame incident and the firing of the State Attorney's. Why shouldn't there be one here when there is a question as to the legality of actions taken? Isn't it better to not stonewall and simply come out with the information? Doesn't stonewalling for 2 months by Gibbs heighten the curiosity and perception of impropriety by the White House and / or it's staff?

Politically I think the Obama's and the administration staff are finally being seen as what they are --- the same politicians and the same secrecy as any other Presidency. The idea that Obama's Administration is somehow far more ethical is preposterous. Simply saying it, and repeating it ad nauseum doesn't make it so and Obama's finally starting to wear thin even with the prized MSM who dearly want him to be everything he claims. The disappointment is getting quite thick and I think we'll see the fractures start to widen as this summer continues through to the fall elections which I believe will further dent the WH hold on the narrative story they want to tell.

MrVicchio said:

I'm trying to find a link to it, but Issa was on Fox and made a comment that Sestak couldn't be on a Commission like the one claimed and also be a member of the House.

Anyone hear something like that or did I mishear him?

Click to expand...

Hmmm, what are the odds? You look to Fixed Noise for your news and wonder if you got bad info? :roll:

As Rendell said, this is acceptable politics. It happens all the time.

As my right wing boys like to say...

There's nothing here folks. Carry on. :2wave:

zimmer said:

That would be interesting.

In 2005 Axelrod wrote an article defending the type of behavior exhibited by Team Obama.
The apple doesn't fall far from the thug's tree as they say in Chicago.

But now that they took the boy out of Chicago, they also took Chicago out of the boy??? Riiiiiiiiiight...

Link to the article is here:A Well-oiled Machine - Chicago Tribune

I would like a Patrick Fitzgerald type prosecutor look into this. Someone that is like a rabid Pit Bull. Jaws locked on, and unwilling to let go until he has satisfied his thirst for flesh and blood... or... using Obama Administration terminology... we should have someone keep their boot on the neck of the administration until we get answers.

All the answers.
Until this felony is cleaned up.

What's that saying about goose and gander?

And the following video will be enough to make the Democrats puke:
YouTube - So Who Is Wrong?!

.

Click to expand...

Who knows if more will come of this issue. (my suspicions is leaning more and more towards 'probably')

But there is a certain rich irony to the possibility that Fitzgerald could get brought into this as the investigator. Fitzgerald is the one who took Scooter Libby to a conviction. For those who remember, the conviction wasn't for the actual misdeeds themselves. It was for lying to the investigators.

This Sestak case has the potential to evolve into something similar. (With the question as to whether he was even eligible for the "offered unpaid adviser" position being the new elephant in the room)

Think the WH is in the awkward position of either defending an earlier explanation that takes a stretch of the imagination to believe....Or they are going to have to start making "adjustments" to the story, which could/would really light up those already cynical....


.

ADK_Forever said:

Hmmm, what are the odds? You look to Fixed Noise for your news and wonder if you got bad info? :roll:

As Rendell said, this is acceptable politics. It happens all the time.

As my right wing boys like to say...

There's nothing here folks. Carry on. :2wave:

Click to expand...

That was a pretty big jerk on your part. Hope you didn't pull anything too badly.

Chris Wallace, son of Mike Wallace, Harvard Grad. REGISTERED DEMOCRAT.
Was he delivering bad info when he ran Meet the Press and worked for NBC?
Every time I see your name on a post I start singing You're So Lame to Carly Simon's famous tune.

CLINTON SIGNED THE LAW BROKEN INTO EXISTENCE... ROTFLMFAO... That is poetic justice.
Two Constitutional lawyers that can't find the right side of the law... Jeezuz is that hilarious.

When you create law like the one created, it is to stop an activity by making it punishable.
Just as Dems pushed for the sexual harassment laws that snagged Clinton... LOL.

What we have here is interesting, ACCORDING TO YOU THESE LAWS DO NOT EXIST FOR DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTS!!! THEY ARE KINGS, TZARs or CHICAGO THUGS.

Now, to Rendell. Did you notice he did not offer a job?????????????????????????????????
dOH... DID YOU????????????????????????????
Let me repeat. Rendell did not offer a job.
He said... see me later... BIG DIFFERENCE.

Now go back to reading your favorite comic book... Rules for Radikals.

This is going to get more interesting... much more interesting.

.