The whole Sestak "job offer" scandal is getting a lot of heat, but very little light. And it's really not that necessary -- it's an exceptionally simple story. Here are the bare bones:
- Admiral Joe Sestak (USN-Retired) is currently a Democratic Representative from Pennsylvania.
- When Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania sought re-election, Sestak thought he could do better in that office than the long-term Republican recently turned Democrat could, so he challenged Specter for the Democratic nomination.
- The Obama administration, keenly interested in keeping every Democratic Senate seat in Democratic hands, even as unreliable as Specter's, calculated that Specter would have a better chance of fending off the Republican challenger than Sestak did, and tried to dissuade Sestak from mounting the challenge.
- According to Sestak, an unnamed member of the Obama administration offered him a very significant job (speculated to be Secretary of the Navy, but not confirmed) in exchange for his dropping out of the race against Specter.
- Sestak has repeated the allegation numerous times, but has refused staunchly to elaborate on any more details: who made the offer, when the offer was made, or even what the precise offer entailed.
- According to Karl Rove, such an offer would be a clear violation of federal law. Rove, who lived for years having to abide by the precise letter of those laws or risk indictment by "get Karl Rove" obsessed political enemies, cites three specific statutes that he believes the offer broke: 18 USC 600, 18 USC 211, and 18 USC 595. I'm no lawyer, but those laws seem pretty clear: the alleged offer broke those laws.
- The Obama administration has had very, very little to say about the whole story. The most substantive thing they've said is, in essence, "we take this matter very seriously, we investigated ourselves quite thoroughly, and we did nothing wrong. We won't say who did it, when they did it, or precisely what they did, but no laws were broken, and you can trust us. In fact, you have to trust us, because we ain't saying any more."
That's where things stand. There's been a lot of stuff around the periphery of the story, but that's the core of it in a nutshell.
My own theory: when Sestak made his charge, he was running against the Obama administration. It was in that context that he "pulled a Biden" and let his mouth run away from him. (I don't know if he was exaggerating for political gain, or spoke the truth without realizing just how incredibly serious and illegal the deal was.) The administration, seeing no benefit in saying anything at all, clammed up until after the primary. And now that Sestak's the nominee, they're back on the same side, and it's in both their interests for this to go away -- without Sestak saying he was lying or the Obama administration admitting it broke the law.
Normally, in cases like this, a lot of rather interesting things would happen. When an official as prominent as Sestak makes this kind of charge, there would be flurries of denials and counteraccusations. But now that Sestak and the Obama administration's interests coincide in getting him elected in November, they both want to just bury it.
So, who will do the digging? Normally, it would be the Justice Department, under Attorney General Eric Holder. But they've already shown their utter disinterest in pursuing political crimes that might not reflect well on the Obama Regime (see the Philadelphia New Black Panthers case, where they shut down a prosecution where they had already won a conviction by default). Holder, obviously, isn't going to do squat about this case.
Then, perhaps, Congress? Well, the Republicans there are certainly raising a stink. And the case affects both Houses -- Sestak is a sitting Representative and the Democratic nominee for the Senate. Either one could claim jurisdiction, or they could do it jointly.
Yup. That's right. Who here thinks that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will go along with that one? Get real.
The state of Pennsylvania? Come on. This is a question of federal law, not state law, and it's abundantly clear what this administration thinks of states stepping up and taking on issues and problems that the Feds refuse to tackle. Just ask Arizona.
One solution in such cases as this has been a Special Prosecutor. The administration finds someone with a solid reputation for investigating sensitive matters and asks them to dig into it, providing them with the resources they need but explicitly rejecting any authority or influence over their conduct. This sounds tailor-made for such a case, when one side has made a very serious allegation of criminal conduct, the other side refuses to issue more than a very vague and general denial, and neither side refuses to offer any more details.
Which is precisely why the Obama regime won't even consider it. After all, they investigated, they determined they did nothing wrong, and everyone should be happy with that, right?