« Bubba Under The Bus? | Main | North vs. South Korea? »

White House claims White House innocent of Sestak impropriety (UPDATED)

And so, it must be true:

I noted below that the White House asked Bill Clinton to meet with Joe Sestak to gauge whether he'd be open to alternatives other than running for Senate.

Now I've got some detail on precisely what alternatives were discussed.

According to a source familiar with the situation, the White House asked Clinton and his adviser, lawyer Doug Band, to suggest to Sestak an unpaid position on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

This is similar to what The New York Times' Peter Baker was told by sources, and Baker adds that the White House counsel looked at the the offer and concluded it wasn't illegal:

The office of Robert F. Bauer, the White House counsel, has concluded that Mr. Emanuel's proposal did not violate laws prohibiting government employees from promising employment as a reward for political activity because the position being offered was unpaid. The office also found other examples of presidents offering positions to political allies to achieve political aims.

And that's your meme folks... stand by for a media circle the wagon jerk as all hands are called on deck to save Obama's bacon.

Once again, what do you think the media would be doing if this were a Republican in charge?

Crossposted at Brutally Honest.

UPDATE: AJStrata is suggesting that the circle will be penetrated and easily:

Who are these people kidding! Something big is about to blow in DC.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39201.

Comments (187)

They still have a problem. ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

They still have a problem. They're calling Sestak a LIAR!

Sestak said, "I was offered a JOB". In my world, "a job" pays MONEY.

Sestak did not say, "I was offered a POSITION." (non-specific)

Doesn't Barry need every vote in the senate he can get? OR has Barry already written off the Pennsylvania senate seat to the Republican challenger? In which case, calling Sestak anything has no political consequences.

Will Bill plead the 5th or ... (Below threshold)
epador:

Will Bill plead the 5th or will he give a different statement? Enquiring Minds want to know!

So, we're supposed to accep... (Below threshold)
MichaelC:

So, we're supposed to accept as truth the premise that a man running for a United States Senate Seat and on course to put away Arlen Specter as his first order of business was offered a nondescript and "non-paying" "job" as an inducement to abandon the possibility of attaining to the most elite circle of power here on Earth, the Senate of the United States of America.

This story is so ridiculous it strains every cord of credulity to be found anywhere. Clearly these amazingly inept and bumbling neophytes are totally convinced that whatever absurd tale they tell will of course be accepted unquestioningly as the simple truth.

Riiiiiiiiight. . . .based I am sure upon the solid gold reputation of veracity and honor of which our valiant president is the most sterling of examples.

Pfftttt. . . . .

And the FUNNY part is that ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

And the FUNNY part is that it all hinges on a man with a STERLING reputation for HONESTY and FAITHFULLNESS!

Hahahahahaha!!! Who thought this 'cover' up? The staff at Saturday Night Live?

Okay Barry. I want to see ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Okay Barry. I want to see the White House phone logs and emails. I want to VERIFY that SOMEONE contacted Clinton and directed him to sound out Sestak.

What's that Barry? That information "isn't available"? Like your legislative history in Illinois? Like your records at Harvard? Like the records of political contributions from outside the country?

You appear to have a "problem" with records, don't you Barry?

Everyone try to keep a stra... (Below threshold)
Oldflyer:

Everyone try to keep a straight face now.

Perhaps the saddest aspect of this is that they could not come up with a better story, given the amount of lead time they have had.

Oddflyer, I'm trying really... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Oddflyer, I'm trying really hard to keep a straight face. According to the memo he was offered an upaid position that he would have in addition to his current seat "which would avoid a divisive Senate primary". Now I don't know about the 'reality-based world', but in my world that's tampering with an election.

WOW!!!does this me... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

WOW!!!

does this mean the check really IS in the mail???

I wonder if they'll break o... (Below threshold)
Tsar Nicholas II:

I wonder if they'll break out Al Gore's epic "no controlling legal authority" defense. That would be way too rich with irony.

The relevant law is <a href... (Below threshold)
Eric:

The relevant law is 18 U.S.C. § 600 : US Code - Section 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity:

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.

From today's White House memo:

We found that, as the Congressman (Sestak) has publicly and accurately stated, options for Executive Branch service were raised with him. Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service in a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified. The advisory positions discussed with Congressman Sestak, while important to the work of the Administration, would have been uncompensated.

It seems to me that the White House is flat out admitting to violating this law.

1)"Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises..."

The WH admits to enlisting Bill Clinton to be their intermediary.

"Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service in a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary..."

...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...

They admit they recruited Bill Clinton for the purpose of discussing options, (including Presidential appointments) with Sestak to avoid a divisive primary.

2) "...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..."

Any position offered does not need to be compensated to be a violation of the law. The "OR OTHER BENEFIT" means that the position does need to be compensated. Appointments are prohibited by the law as well. Being appointed to a Presidential Advisory Board brings a certain prestige that has future value in the job market.

3) "...provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress..."

Presidential Advisory Boards are funded by the General Services Administration which receive their funds from Congress. Advisory Board members may not be compensated but the Board itself gets government funding.

5) The fact that a Presidential Advisory position was offered means that this goes all the way to the top. The President signs off on whoever sits on his advisory boards.

This needs to go to the DoJ now.

We are about to find out... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

We are about to find out if there is ANY integrity left in our press.

ANY.

This is story is so clumsily construncted, so utterly unbelievable on its face, that ANY journalist with ANY integrity is going to be screaming to dig into it.

If they do not dig into it, then it will spell the death of something our democracy really does need: a free and honest press. It's been sick for a while...this will signify its demise.

Sounds to me like the mista... (Below threshold)
James H:

Sounds to me like the mistake here was spelling everything out.

Them damn Sleezstaks!!... (Below threshold)
914:

Them damn Sleezstaks!!

Okay Okay I will be the one... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Okay Okay I will be the one to say it

Will we hear Obama utter "depends upon what the meaning of is is"

?

"White House claims Whit... (Below threshold)
914:

"White House claims White House innocent of Sestak impropriety (UPDATED"


)I didn't cheat on m6y taxes either, just like Holder!

So the position itself was ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

So the position itself was unpaid? So what?

That does not rule out the possibility that there were som eother assurances that he would get paid. After all, why would he turn down an extrememly well paid Senate position that would likely last 12 years or more for an unpaid advisory psoition that might only last 2?

It makes no sense that there wasn't money on or under the table somewhere. Otherwise it makes Barry look like an even bigger ass than he has so far.

"This needs to go to the Do... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"This needs to go to the DoJ now."
Would that be the same DOJ that declined to prosecute some Black Panthers?
That DOJ?
This is going to go down as ANOTHER of those "the cover-up was worse than the crime".
The 'cover-up' was necessary because the main party is HIGH UP in the White House. So WHO is so HIGH that they can't fit under the bus? Maybe not Barry, but maybe someone who has done his bidding and KNOWS where ALL the dirt is?

Remember: Dick Morris was a LOYAL Clinton adviser. Until something happened.

The Volokh Conspiracy's Jon... (Below threshold)
James H:

The Volokh Conspiracy's Jonathan Adler has a good take on this, I think.

If I were a horse right now... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

If I were a horse right now, I'd be very afraid.

"Crap I just know I'm gonna end up in somebody's bed!"

If I were a Sleestak! I'd c... (Below threshold)
914:

If I were a Sleestak! I'd catch a cab before Obamas magic bus gets a clue ass! Oh wait, that shit is never gonna happen!!1

This all makes for a good c... (Below threshold)
Clancy:

This all makes for a good commercial against Sestak:

[clip] Sestak: I was offered a job
[fade to black - dramatic pause]
[clip] Sestak: I wasn't offered a job
[fade to black - dramatic pause]
voice-over: Truth? - who knows? What we do know is Sestak is a liar.
[picture of Sestak, 'LIAR' super-imposed.]

Perfect imperfection: Obama... (Below threshold)
914:

Perfect imperfection: Obama administration exemplify's "Land of the Lost", Minus the Sleazestak of course!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHL


This tread and the previous... (Below threshold)
justpassingthrough:

This tread and the previous one just screams for a Lee Ward comment.
A no show (so far).
I feel cheated.

"This tread and the prev... (Below threshold)
914:

"This tread and the previous one just screams for a Lee Ward comment.
A no show (so far).
I feel cheated."


He's busy showing he cares down in craw daddy country with his mistress! Oh wait, scuze em'wah! He's in Chicago cause he needed a rest after never resting until a hole got plugged?


what do you think the me... (Below threshold)

what do you think the media would be doing if this were a Republican in charge?

Well, what did the media do when a Republican in charge did this?

When it was Ronald Reagan, apparently not a single thing.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100527104150AAfJVyt

The Reagan administration suggested that if [S.I. Hayakawa] drop out of the crowded Republican primary race in California, President Reagan would find him a job. That was in 1981. "I'm not interested", said the 75-year-old Hayakawa. "I do not want an administrative post."

So this means that in this case either Obama is as great as Reagan, or Reagan is as awful as Obama - take your pick.

In addition, sorry guys but this is yet another case in which conservatives are not unfairly treated victims.

So this means that... (Below threshold)
Eric:
So this means that in this case either Obama is as great as Reagan, or Reagan is as awful as Obama - take your pick.

Okay to be fair, I suggest that the DoJ launch a full investigation of both cases including detailed interviews with all of the parties involved.

"So this means that in t... (Below threshold)
914:

"So this means that in this case either Obama is as great as Reagan, or Reagan is as awful as Obama - take your pick."

Fuck off Bitch!!

Fuck off Bitch!!... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Fuck off Bitch!!

27. Posted by 914 | May 28, 2010 3:42 PM

Glad to see the comment police are non-biased and fair - and that Jay's mighty Bob the Builder Hammer works its magic regardless of whether it's a liberal or conservative making the remark.

In case anyone is intereste... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

In case anyone is interested - here's a link to the White House response put out this morning. None of the conservative bloggers are linking to it for some reason....

Link - http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/Sestak%20Memorandum.pdf

Were not interested ... (Below threshold)
914:

Were not interested

jimmy BOY, you gotta READ t... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

jimmy BOY, you gotta READ the links you post:

"Hayakawa would be offered an administration post if he decided not to seek re-election, but that no offer had been made to him directly."
Hayakawa in response said,"I have not contacted the White House in regard to any administration or ambassadorial post, and they have not been in contact with me."

This was not considered a crime of any kind and it was openly talked about in the newspapers. Why the Sestak story any different?

You want one of us to tell you WHY it's DIFFERENT, jimmy-BOY?

Oyster and Eric have it rig... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Oyster and Eric have it right - this statement is a flatout admission of guilt.

"Avoid a divisive primary" indeed. A divisive primary is the Democrat Party's problem - not the government's problem - which the Obama Administration proposed to solve by offering a government position, by their own admission. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

"None of the conservative b... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"None of the conservative bloggers are linking to it for some reason."

Maybe you should look at some other web sites THAT ARE LINKING TO IT? Or could it be that they 'cut and pasted' the entire document into their site?

But then that blows your snark, doesn't it?

"Glad to see the comment... (Below threshold)
914:

"Glad to see the comment police are non-biased and fair - and "

Yeah , yeah , yeah. Grow the fuck up already you little punk! "THESE ARE "WORDS" NOT 'DEEDS"! We dont need the thought police here! Even though you were once a keystone cop in your non fertile imagination, Obama even has you outclassed and thought! And thats saying nothing.

BTW, Bauer is married to An... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

BTW, Bauer is married to Anita Dunn.

"Maybe you should look a... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

"Maybe you should look at some other web sites THAT ARE LINKING TO IT? Or could it be that they 'cut and pasted' the entire document into their site?"

I did.

They didn't.

Stay on topic.

And the "Inconvenient Truth Pointing Out the Usual Right Wing Hypocrisy" Award goes to... envelope please....

The winner is... "Reagan Did it Too You Hypocrites" (applause, applause)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100527104150AAfJVyt

The Reagan administration suggested that if [S.I. Hayakawa] drop out of the crowded Republican primary race in California, President Reagan would find him a job. That was in 1981. "I'm not interested", said the 75-year-old Hayakawa. "I do not want an administrative post."
Hayakawa in response said,"... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Hayakawa in response said,"I have not contacted the White House in regard to any administration or ambassadorial post, and they have not been in contact with me."

Read comment #31.

"Stay on topic."Th... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Stay on topic."

That's RICH! Lee Ward: "Stay on topic."
The one, the only, Mr. Lee "OH LOOK A RABBIT!" Ward, telling someone else "stay on topic".

"Stay on topic."... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"Stay on topic."

Lee, you are a hypocrite in every sense of the word. Or just an idiot.

You want one of us to te... (Below threshold)

You want one of us to tell you WHY it's DIFFERENT, jimmy-BOY?

Actually, I'm going to tell you it's NOT DIFFERENT, in any meaningful way.

The only thing that IS different, is that if Obama does you right-wingers crap your pants and call him Capone Hitler.

Fuck off Bitch!!... (Below threshold)

Fuck off Bitch!!

I'm sorry. Were you talking to Ronald Reagan? He can't do that any more. You should have some respect for the dead. Even if it does turn out that he is as crooked as Obama.

Lee,1) Accusing Reag... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Lee,
1) Accusing Reagan of the same thing is not a good defense. Saying someone else broke the law, does not mean your guy can too.

2) I quoted from the Bauer memo in post #10. I also point out that it is a tacit admission of guilt by showing where the White House memo admit to violations of 18 U.S.C. § 600.

So keep on going with the talking points from the White House.

Keep polishing that turd ji... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Keep polishing that turd jimmy!

Comrade Lee, aren't you 29 ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Comrade Lee, aren't you 29 years late in bringing this up? How about Lincoln offering William Seward the SecState job? More Republican malfeasance!

Face it - Obama & Co. are standing in the dog's business. Someone's got to take the rap for this.

Okay to be fair, I sugge... (Below threshold)

Okay to be fair, I suggest that the DoJ launch a full investigation of both cases including detailed interviews with all of the parties involved.

As long as that investigation extends into the recent Bush Administration's hiring practices as well, I have no problem with that.

I like cold days in Hell.

jim x,Let me try a... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

jim x,

Let me try and understand this. Hold on while I get my crayons out.

Sestak - Yes, I was offered a job

is equal to

Hayakawa - "I have not contacted the White House in regard to any administration or ambassadorial post, and they have not been in contact with me."

That 'reality-based concept' isn't working for you.

Now the Anti-America... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:


Now the Anti-American Left's great source is . . . . Yahoo! Answers - Motto: "Our standards make Wikipedia look definitive." - ???

You sick, sick, perverted scum, how low can you sink? Would you gut your own mother for Obama?

"Okay to be fair, I suggest... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Okay to be fair, I suggest that the DoJ launch a full investigation of both cases including detailed interviews with all of the parties involved."

Hahahahahaaha!!!!! jimmy, you clear that with Barry?

S.I.Hayakawa is DEAD. Reagan is DEAD. Or hadn't you noticed?

Jim X, I don't mind either.... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Jim X, I don't mind either. Bush isn't the guy in office. The next relevant question becomes, what did Biden know and when did he know it?

Is everyone kidding? It's o... (Below threshold)
Don L:

Is everyone kidding? It's obvious that Obama merely met with Bill to have him suggest to Hillary that she should stop using that smelly perfume at his cabinet meetings.

Sestak was just a man who had access to a better fragrance. The whole thing is just a mere coincidence -these things happen.

As Rush says: don't doubt me!

Garandfan-boy, you should r... (Below threshold)

Garandfan-boy, you should read the post as well.

An offer to Sestak via former President Clinton, is exactly the same sort of indirect offer as the Reagan Administration made to Hayakawa.

"Hayakawa would be offered an administration post if he decided not to seek re-election, but that no offer had been made to him directly."

My point is: this is something I had never heard of before, and apparently most conservatives never had either. It's not even something that bothered DEMOCRATS about Reagan. EVEN THEN.

This is because this is something that is so minor it honestly does not matter.

It is completely clear, based on this historical evidence, that this is only you are getting lathered up about if you hate Obama.

I agree with MichaelC that ... (Below threshold)
Geoffrey Britain:

I agree with MichaelC that this strains credulity past the breaking point, but only for those inclined to doubt. But if Clinton, the lawyer Band and Sestak all say, "yup. that's what happened" the probable lies will hold. Oyster and Eric may have it right but nothing will come of this if no contrary testimony or evidence emerges.

Predicating that something of value, additional prestige, was offered is too nebulous to prosecute. They'll just claim that they were offering 'suggestions', 'alternative career paths' for Sestak to consider and that had Sestak expressed interest in the advisory job, his qualifications would make it a virtual certainty that he'd get the position. Allowing him to further serve his country while best coordinating his efforts with the party's current needs.

Maintaining that the use of the term job, rather than 'position' puts the lie to the WH announcement is a semantic argument and regardless of how semantically valid, it's not going to be legally persuasive.

No, barring a 'wild card' this story is over and we have to move on and realize that while it contributes cumulatively to dissatisfaction with Obama, it's not a poison pill.

Fortunately, Obama can't help himself and will continue to be his own worst enemy.

The oil spill fiasco is merely the latest in what promises to be a long list of political disasters for Obama and his administration.

Keep polishing that turd... (Below threshold)

Keep polishing that turd jimmy!

Keep swallowing that turd-flavored talking points menu Garandfanny!

Oyster X, let me try and ge... (Below threshold)

Oyster X, let me try and get this clear for you.

The "reality-based" concept doesn't work if you apply loose summations of one statement (Sestak's), and exact literal interpretations to the other statement (Hayakawa's).

The accusation against the Obama administration is that they indirectly offered Sestak a job while he was running, in order for him to drop out of a Democratic primary.

Sestak says he was not contacted by the Obama administration directly, but through Bill Clinton. Which is being contacted indirectly.

The record states that the Reagan administration indirectly offered Hayakawa a job while he was running, in order to for him to drop out of a GOP primary.

Hayakawa says he was not contacted by the Reagan administration. But the Washington Post article says he was contacted indirectly.

Is this clear for you now?

"This is because this is so... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"This is because this is something that is so minor it honestly does not matter."

Quite a polish ya got on that turd, jimmy!

Now the Anti-American Le... (Below threshold)

Now the Anti-American Left's great source is . . . . Yahoo! Answers -

Since that's such a terrible source, you should easily be able to prove me wrong, right?

Go for it, willing symbol of the Anti-American Right!

I can't muster much passion... (Below threshold)
James H:

I can't muster much passion on this one way or the other. It has the distinct odor of a strictly inside-baseball scandal with members of one tribe counting coup against members of another.

"I'm sorry. Were you tal... (Below threshold)
914:

"I'm sorry. Were you talking to Ronald Reagan? He can't do that any more. You should have some respect for the dead. Even if it does turn out that he is as crooked as Obama."

No, I was talkin to you , you stupid bitch

You sick, sick, perverte... (Below threshold)

You sick, sick, perverted scum, how low can you sink? Would you gut your own mother for Obama?

Having a tantrum doesn't obscure the facts. Just FYI.

Sorry, I fergot! No sur nam... (Below threshold)
914:

Sorry, I fergot! No sur names emblazened with factual truth!

No, I was talkin to you ... (Below threshold)

No, I was talkin to you , you stupid bitch

See, there you go again, talking to Ronald Reagan. You should look at that.

You're going back to S. I. ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

You're going back to S. I. Fucking Hayakawa, for God's sake? Late breaking news? All the principals are dead, kinda like whoever made the offer to Sestak.

Bottom line: Someone offered Sestak a government job to influence the course of an election.

And that's a felony.

Period.

"The accusation against the... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"The accusation against the Obama administration is that they indirectly offered Sestak a job while he was running, in order for him to drop out of a Democratic primary."

No, someone by the name of Bill Clinton, REPRESENTING the Obama Administration contacted Sestak DIRECTLY.

"Sestak says he was not contacted by the Obama administration directly, but through Bill Clinton. Which is being contacted indirectly."

Not even a confabulist like Obama would hang his hat on that statement.

"The record states that the Reagan administration indirectly offered Hayakawa a job while he was running, in order to for him to drop out of a GOP primary."

Okay.

"Hayakawa says he was not contacted by the Reagan administration."

Let's use another S.I. quote:

Hayakawa in response said,"I have not contacted the White House in regard to any administration or ambassadorial post, and they have not been in contact with me."

Don't care what WaPo 'says'. To expand your knowledge base, S.I. was a linguist. Wrote many books. S.I. therefore knew how to use language AND TO SAY EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANT.

Is this clear for you now?

Quite a polish ya got on... (Below threshold)

Quite a polish ya got on that turd, jimmy!

Thanks! It's the least I can do. You guys have been trying to polish up Reagan's record for quite some time now.

To 'quote' your buddy, Lee ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

To 'quote' your buddy, Lee Ward, stay on topic!

Bottom l... (Below threshold)


Bottom line: Someone offered Sestak a government job to influence the course of an election.

And that's a felony.

Period.

Jay Guevera, I know you want to think that. But this type of hypothetical offer is NOT a felony.

Period.

Besides what impartial law experts think - if this was a felony, the Democratic controlled Congress which absolutely HATED Reagan would have pursued it.

Now, granted, the Reagan administration was very criminal in a *literal* sense - receiving the largest amount of successful criminal **convictions** of any administration in US history. So later on, it might have gotten lost in the shuffle.

But this was quite early on in Reagan's administration, so surely the Democrats would have gone for it right away if there was absolutely anything to it.

They didn't.

So it's almost certainly not a felony, nor even really a big deal.

Sorry to interrupt y'all's "Obama's a Marx Hitler and all us big conservatives are being screwed by the islamofascist media" cry party.
That's how it is.

'Thanks! It's the least ... (Below threshold)
914:

'Thanks! It's the least I can do. You guys have been trying to polish up Reagan's record for quite some time now."

Yes You idiot, I prefer 19.99% unemployment and more taxation with representation by like minded idiots like You in D.C. u Fucking idiot. I prefer "The won" So I can lose with the best of them.

"So it's almost certainly n... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"So it's almost certainly not a felony, nor even really a big deal."

Have you even BOTHERED to read the relevant U.S. Code?

No, someone by the name ... (Below threshold)

No, someone by the name of Bill Clinton, REPRESENTING the Obama Administration contacted Sestak DIRECTLY.

Which the Obama administration did, rather than the Obama administration contacting Sestak DIRECTLY.

See, it's DIRECT for Clinton, but INDIRECT for Obama. Because Clinton is in DIRECT contact with Sestak, but the Obama administration is only in INDIRECT contact with Sestak.

See, something is direct when you do it, but indirect if you do it through an intermediary, aka a 3rd party.

Follow?

And yes, it makes sense to me that Hayakawa is someone who is using words precisely. The Reagan Administration did NOT contact him directly. Because, like Sestak, Hayakawa was contacted indirectly - through a third party. And Edward Rollins, who had yet to be sworn in to work for Reagan but was in the following year, knew of and mentioned the offer.

Why don't you go and read the article yourself:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19811126&id=ibcsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5060,5317656

Incidentally, you should all try this great new service called The Google. With it you can find all sorts of facts.

Yes You idiot, I prefer ... (Below threshold)

Yes You idiot, I prefer 19.99% unemployment and more taxation with representation by like minded idiots like You in D.C. u Fucking idiot.

Splendid! You're still calling someone a fucking idiot, though, so it still seems you're talking to Reagan.

You really, really should look into that.

Jay Guevera, I kno... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:
Jay Guevera, I know you want to think that. But this type of hypothetical offer is NOT a felony.

It's a straight-up felony. But let's turn it around: in your view, what would contravene the relevant provisions of 18 USC? What would it take, in your view, for a felony to be committed? Seriously.

Have you even BOTHERED t... (Below threshold)

Have you even BOTHERED to read the relevant U.S. Code?

Have you even BOTHERED to hear what actual non-partisan legal experts have to say about it?

Keep polishing................ (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Keep polishing.............

See, it's DIRECT f... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:
See, it's DIRECT for Clinton, but INDIRECT for Obama. Because Clinton is in DIRECT contact with Sestak, but the Obama administration is only in INDIRECT contact with Sestak.

Ah, so you admit that Obama indirectly contacted Sestak with a job offer to influence an election.

Permit me:

18 USC 600: 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.

Jim XUsing that tw... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jim X

Using that twisted logic then you could argue that perjury is not a felony either even though Bill Clinton did it.

As far as Reagan goes I say this. If you have proof that he committed a feloney (like say a letter from his administration admitting it) then by all means prosecute. The same goes for Obama.


Sorry, sent prematurely - m... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Sorry, sent prematurely - meant to embolden "primary election" too, but you get the idea: Obama & Co. tagged the bases on the elements of this crime.

That he did so indirectly is not exculpatory, by the plain language of the statute. True?

in your view, what would... (Below threshold)

in your view, what would contravene the relevant provisions of 18 USC? What would it take, in your view, for a felony to be committed? Seriously.

Well, rather thank what I think, I'm interested in what actual legal experts think.

For example, here's Richard Painter, former chief ethics lawyer for the Bush administration:

http://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2010/05/joe-sestaks-bribe-scandal-another-ethics-sideshow.html

The allegation that the job offer was somehow a "bribe" in return for Sestak not running in the primary is difficult to support. Sestak, if he had taken a job in the Administration, would not have been permitted to run in the Pennsylvania primary. The Hatch Act prohibits a federal employee from being a candidate for nomination or election to a partisan political office. 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(3). He had to choose one or the other, but he could not choose both.
BTW jimmyBOYSince ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

BTW jimmyBOY

Since we are talking about proof and allegations.

Where is all the proof against Cheney that the left had with Valerie Plame incident? Oh wait, it didnt exist yet you and your buds on the left wanted to frog march him to jail. And when Armitage was outed as the real leaker not one cry from the left to throw him in jail.

Yet we have the NY Times release names and addresses of Covert CIA agents who questioned prisoners at GITMO and where is the hue and cry from the left to prosecute their source? Nonexistent.

Maybe it was as you put it "You just hated Cheney so much"

Before you start saying that republicans dont hold the same standards across parties maybe you should look at your own party.

Using that twisted logic... (Below threshold)

Using that twisted logic then you could argue that perjury is not a felony either even though Bill Clinton did it.

No, for a couple of reasons. First of all, Clinton was actually found NOT guilty of perjury in a court of law. You guys should get used to Google - go look it up.

But more to the point, Clinton *was* actually pursued by the opposing party. And they pushed it as far as they possibly could. So this example doesn't fit, at all.

Can you get to the center o... (Below threshold)
914:

Can you get to the center of a turd if you keep polishing, shining ,smelling, inhaling, eating? How much ignorance does one need to get to the center of a turd? Jim x, ask BARRY! He's good at shit theatre!

Oh and Lee Ward"St... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Oh and Lee Ward

"Stay on topic"

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAQHAHAHAHHA

I wouldn't have believed it if I hadnt seen it. Maybe we should request Jay Tea to doublecheck IP addresses to make sure someone isnt imitating you again.

Do everyone a favor Lee. Raise the average IQ level of the posts on this site by 50 points by just not posting anymore.

Dont go away mad. Just go away.

jim x from you blockquote.... (Below threshold)
Marc:

jim x from you blockquote... "The Hatch Act prohibits a federal employee from being a candidate for nomination or election to a partisan political office."

Certainly was convenient that the "job" offered (wink-wink nod-nod) was an UNPAID spot on some innocuous board.

Let's do it by the numbers:... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Let's do it by the numbers:

18 USC 600: Whoever, directly or indirectly,

Indirect contact therefore counts. Strike one.

promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit,

This is clear enough: any employment, position, ... appointment. Sestake claims he was offered an undisclosed position. Strike two.

provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress,

We don't know what the position offered was, but Sestak said in the government, in which case it's safe to assume it was made possible by an Act of Congress. True? Strike three.

[...[ to any person

Sestak is a person. Strike four.

as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party [...], or in connection with any primary election [...] held to select candidates for any political office,

Sestak says he was offered the position above if he would not oppose a candidate (Spector) in a primary election held to select candidates for a political office (U.S. Senator). Strike five.

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

It's clear as day: this law has been broken. If Sestak is telling the truth, somebody has made out all the elements of this crime.

If, alternatively, Sestak is lying, in which case let's put him under oath to repeat his charges, and then charge him with perjury. But somebody's gotta go down for this.

And please stop bleating about fucking S. I. Hayakawa, and stick to post-Pleistocene times.

That he did so indirectl... (Below threshold)

That he did so indirectly is not exculpatory, by the plain language of the statute. True?

Sure, direct or indirect is not exculpatory. The thing is, that isn't what makes both the Obama and Reagan administrations innocent of violating that statute with a job offer.

What makes it most definitely not a bribe is that, according to Bush's own ethics lawyer that I offered above, Sestak was not yet a candidate for the office - because he had not yet won the primary. And neither, incidentally, had Hayakawa.

retired military - "Whe... (Below threshold)
Marc:

retired military - "Where is all the proof against Cheney that the left had with Valerie Plame incident? Oh wait, it didnt exist yet you and your buds on the left wanted to frog march him to jail."

Well now, there seems to be a pattern of that behavior.

Wiretapping... what wiretapping!

Keep polishing............. (Below threshold)

Keep polishing.............

Keep gurgling that sweet slushy of turd-and-diarrheea talking points...

Off-topic, retired military... (Below threshold)

Off-topic, retired military, but I'll respond the once.

Where is all the proof against Cheney that the left had with Valerie Plame incident?

I believe that was locked away when Scooter Libby was convicted of 3 counts of perjury and 1 of obstruction of justice. For which he was then pardoned by Bush. Isn't that interesting how that happens. You want to talk about bribery...

Yet we have the NY Times release names and addresses of Covert CIA agents who questioned prisoners at GITMO and where is the hue and cry from the left to prosecute their source? Nonexistent.

Maybe it was as you put it "You just hated Cheney so much"

Hey, I'm up for an open investigation into that. All I ask is that the Plame investigation be reopened as well. No problem there, right?

Before you start saying that republicans dont hold the same standards across parties maybe you should look at your own party.

Maybe you should look at yours too. After all, it is possible that Republicans can be crooks too, right?

From the <a href="ht... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:


From the Washington Post:

Sestak was asked separately Thursday about administration pressure by a Washington Post reporter. He replied, "There has been some indirect means in which they were trying to offer things if I got out."

Looks clear enough to me.

in your view, what would contravene the relevant provisions of 18 USC? What would it take, in your view, for a felony to be committed? Seriously.

Well, rather thank what I think, I'm interested in what actual legal experts think.

No, I want to know what you think. What would it take for you to say, "Yep, Barry's my boy, but he's broken the law?"

jim X - "Sestak was not... (Below threshold)
Marc:

jim X - "Sestak was not yet a candidate for the office - because he had not yet won the primary. And neither, incidentally, had Hayakawa."

And that makes a diff?

Apparently not - "as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party [...], or in connection with any primary election [...] held to select candidates for any political office, "

Wiretapping... what wire... (Below threshold)

Wiretapping... what wiretapping!

If someone were to go after Obama for continuing Bush's wiretapping program, I would be absolutely all for it.

I didn't like it when Bush did it, and I don't like it now either. It's one of the MANY things I don't like about Obama.

There are so many *real* things to not like about Obama, and so many things that could be done better. It just doesn't seem like conservatives are focusing on that. I wish this were different. When this does change, is when we could actually see a viable third party that's neither "liberal" nor "conservative" - but I guarantee it would contain a lot of liberals and conservatives.

Lee, you astonishing hypocr... (Below threshold)

Lee, you astonishing hypocrite. Barely 24 hours after you converted a discussion about Obama's private army of purple-clad Brownshirts into a rehash or Arizona's immigration law (complete with some rather remarkable lies on your behalf), you're chastising someone else to stay on topic?

And no, nobody here has come anywhere near close to invoking Olaf The Troll God's Hammer. Not even you -- because I LIKE leaving your lies and hypocrisy out for all to see so they can properly hang you.

J.

And that makes a diff?</... (Below threshold)

And that makes a diff?

Yes, Mark. That's apparently what makes a diff, according to the law.

That's what legal experts say, and that explains why Reagan wasn't gone after when he did the exact same thing.

jim x - "I believe that... (Below threshold)
Marc:

jim x - "I believe that was locked away when Scooter Libby was convicted of 3 counts of perjury and 1 of obstruction of justice. For which he was then pardoned by Bush."

Oppsy, short of facts and reality aren't you?

He received a presidential commutation not a pardon.

No, I want to know what ... (Below threshold)

No, I want to know what you think. What would it take for you to say, "Yep, Barry's my boy, but he's broken the law?"

I think Obama is breaking the law right now. I just don't think this is an example of that, and honestly I consider it a very minor manner.

What I consider actually breaking the law, and much more important, is how Obama is allowing illegal wiretapping to continue, is apparently continuing policies of extraordinary rendition, and doing other things which are no more legal under Obama than under Bush. And are no more good as ideas, either, even setting aside the moral and legal aspects.

Honestly, I'm not all that ... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Honestly, I'm not all that exercized about it. Anyone who doesn't think this sort of thing goes on all the time is terribly naive. What I find so ridiculous about it is the "well Reagan did it too" defense and that this is the most ethical, transparent no-more-business-as-usual administration EVAH! that has been caught with their pants down.

jim x and apparently you fa... (Below threshold)
Marc:

jim x and apparently you failed to understand, or care to, the boldface section.

And it's Marc, not "Mark," details my friend are not your strong suit. But that's obvious.

He received a presidenti... (Below threshold)

He received a presidential commutation not a pardon.

Wow! You're right, I stand corrected.

A pardon would mean the conviction was overturned, while a commutation means the conviction stands but Scooter simply had any punishment waived.

Thanks for correcting me. Lol.

jim x and apparently you... (Below threshold)

jim x and apparently you failed to understand, or care to, the boldface section.

Marque, you apparently fail to understand, or care to, that I read it but consider Bush's chief expert in ethics law to be a superior source of legal interpretation.

What I find so ridiculou... (Below threshold)

What I find so ridiculous about it is the "well Reagan did it too" defense and that this is the most ethical, transparent no-more-business-as-usual administration EVAH! that has been caught with their pants down.

Then you are misunderstanding.

By bringing up Reagan, and pointing out that Reagan wasn't convicted of it, I'm pointing out not only that it is not illegal.

Among other reasons, if it was illegal than Reagan would definitely have been pursued for doing it.

<a href="http://www.youtube... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vthbfSrSOzU

Notice in the above, they talk about the offer being made by 'someone AT the White House'. Sestak makes NO effort to correct that statement.

Sestak statement released today:

"Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton. During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background. He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives. I said no."

Looks like Sestak has got his story straight now as well.

Oyster - "Honestly, I'm... (Below threshold)
Marc:

Oyster - "Honestly, I'm not all that exercized about it. "

And I agree, it does go on by both parties, and in fact NY Sen. Gilbrand(Spelling?) had the field cleared by Obama of 2-3 otrhers oas she assumed Hillary's seat.

What I find astounding is this went on for three months, and this is the result?

An ex-pres was the intermediary, the same ex pres that promoted Sestak to Rear Admiral.

I mean really, the press release sounds sooooo innocuous, ("move along nothing to see here,") yet there was silence by all parties for three months.

That fact alone is at minimum puzzling.

Sestak was not ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Sestak was not yet a candidate for the office - because he had not yet won the primary.

The reported offer was allegedly made

in connection with any primary election [...] held to select

Sestak was not yet a candidate for the office - because he had not yet won the primary.

The reported offer was allegedly made

"...in connection with any primary election [...] held to select candidates for any political office."

Someone entering the primary is a candidate - for the nomination, at least - but put that aside. The plain language of the statute does not require the offeree to have already won the primary, and in fact that interpretation makes nonsense of the provision quoted above. True?

"A pardon would mean the co... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"A pardon would mean the conviction was overturned"

No, "pardon" means you're 'forgiven'. The president has NO authority to "OVERTURN" a conviction.

You're welcome.

jim x, nobody is using Karl... (Below threshold)

jim x, nobody is using Karl Rove as an ethics expert. What they are using him for is an expert on what the ethics laws say -- and if there's anyone who ought to know those laws backward and forward, it's Rove. His enemies spent YEARS trying to hang him with them, and failed miserably.

Rove is just pointing to the specific laws he believes were broken here. It's up to us to go to those specific laws and decide for ourselves whether or not they apply. Think of it, if you like, as an example of "it takes a thief to catch a thief."

I think they do. So does anyone with two neurons to rub together.

J.

Every day there are dozens ... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Every day there are dozens and dozens of

{{{ { { {COMPLETELY UNPRECEDENTED, ALL-TIME-WORST SCANDALS EVER} } } }}}

When something really scandal-worthy really comes up don't be surprised when your complaints go

IN➜ one ear and OUT➜ the other.

Regarding indictments and c... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Regarding indictments and corruption: There are varying lists of how many people were run out of the Reagan administration for corruption. Some include people who quit or were fired but never indicted. Some include people who were indicted but never convicted.

Having said that, approximately 40 people convicted from the Nixon admin, 31 from the Reagan and 47 from the Clinton.

To include resignations is a farce since dems won't resign even if you catch them with $90k of cash in their freezer.

Jim X"First of all... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jim X

"First of all, Clinton was actually found NOT guilty of perjury in a court of law"

Yet the fact that Reagan wasnt found guilty of anything doesnt stop you from bringing him up. AL Capone was never found guilty of racketeering either. That doesnt mean Capone or Clinton was not guilty of it.

REf Plame

So Armitage is the leak and you still want to convict Cheney of it? Boy you are really reaching arent you.

Investigate away. I am of the opinion that all the crooks need to be tossed out. I am not defending anyone that I know was guilty of a crime. That meaning Clinton, Obama, or Capone.


Truth be told, nothing will come of this unless Hillary can use it to run in 2012.

"First of all, Clinton was ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"First of all, Clinton was actually found NOT guilty of perjury in a court of law"

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton will leave office free of the prospect of criminal charges after he admitted Friday that he knowingly gave misleading testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in a 1998 lawsuit.

Under an agreement with Independent Counsel Robert Ray, Clinton's law license will be suspended for five years and he will pay a $25,000 fine to Arkansas bar officials. He also gave up any claim to repayment of his legal fees in the matter. In return, Ray will end the 7-year-old Whitewater probe that has shadowed most of Clinton's two terms.

Yep. No punishment at all.

I think Obama i... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

I think Obama is breaking the law right now. I just don't think this is an example of that, and honestly I consider it a very minor manner.

OK, but still and all, what would Obama have to do, in your book, to break this particular law?

I understand your concern about "wiretapping" (although I understand it is not illegal to tap international phone calls involving the U.S., but rather only those calls within the U.S., but let that pass). To an extent I also understand your concern about extraordinary rendition, although I also realize that this is not a perfect world, and sometimes we need to take the gloves off.

The difference between us is one of priorities. Do we throw some elbows under the basket against foreign enemies, to help protect this country? I'm sure. I support that. It's not nice, but it's better than another 9/11. We're fighting a dirty war, against a dirty enemy. We're going to get dirty, inevitably. I accept that.

Read up on how the British dealt with the Malayan emergency, or more recently, the IRA. They threw some elbows too; they had to, to win. Look at FDR's treatment of the German saboteurs during WWII (after signing an Executive Order to intern questionable Japanese, Germans, and Italians): he basically instructed Francis Biddle straight-up to try and convict them before a secret military tribunal, and execute them forthwith, no matter what, to discourage similar attempts in the future. Nice? No. Sound decision? Yes. It was in the interests of the United States that these men should die, even though the men themselves didn't really deserve it.

Similarly, FDR committed an an act of war, and violated the Neutrality Act, by ordering the US Navy to protect British convoys. But he saw that Britain needed help, fast, or ultimately, when the US would inevitably be dragged in, we would be fighting alone. A higher national purpose justified the breaking of a law.

In contrast, this job offer, if borne out, is an attempt to suborn the domestic legislative process by bribery. Obama wasn't protecting the country; he was protecting his legislative agenda. Trying to bribe Sestak - for that's what it was, if it happened - has no countervailing justification. His actions - if proven - undermine the basis of our democracy, and serve no higher purpose.

Does this make sense?

You guys must be joking? Th... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

You guys must be joking? This a pretty damp squib, if this is the best Obama's intransigent critics such as yourselves, can do in a year and half to raise an Obama 'scandal'. I think you should give up, really.

Even Richard Painter, the chief White House ethics officer under George W. Bush,

dismissed the "scandal." He made two points. First, he said, now that we know the "job" was an unpaid advisory position, it's even less likely that this was intended as a quid pro quo.

"Where is the quid pro quo?" Painter asked. "Nobody who has a halfway decent chance of winning a Senate race is going to give it up to sit on an advisory board. That would be a laughable tradeoff."

Painter also took issue with the notion that the version of events aired by the White House today could in any way be illegal. Republicans point to a Federal statute that prohibits any promises of "employment" as a "reward for any political activity."

But Painter says applying this to the Sestak situation is a big stretch. He argued that the sort of "political activity" referred to in the statute concerns political activity you might do for someone else, not actions you might take on your own behalf, such as dropping out of a race.

...Based on the information disclosed from the White House, it's even more apparent that this is a non issue," Painter said. "No scandal. Time to move on."

"Where is the quid pro quo?... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Where is the quid pro quo?" Painter asked. "Nobody who has a halfway decent chance of winning a Senate race is going to give it up to sit on an advisory board. That would be a laughable tradeoff."

DID Sestak have "a 1/2 decent chance"? Your Obamassiah was going to campaign for Arlen. He promised. Then Sestak made the charge of 'the offer' without going into details. Obama did not campaign for Arlen. Sestak won the primary. Arlen lost. Barry wanted Arlen to win.

jim x wrote:<blockquo... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

jim x wrote:

What makes it most definitely not a bribe is that, according to Bush's own ethics lawyer that I offered above, Sestak was not yet a candidate for the office - because he had not yet won the primary.

Here's the problem: the "ethics lawyer" you cite was speaking about the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from engaging in campaigns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

What is being discussed is 18 USCS § 600, a section of the federal code completely unrelated to the Hatch Act. 18 USCS § 600 is in the criminal section of the code.

One has nothing to do with another.

"Candidate" is not defined anywhere close to 18 USCS § 600, that I can find. So, courts will use a common language definition. Good luck to Obama in arguing that a person running for the Democratic nomination for US Senator is not a "candidate."

As to "Reagan did it, too"--Richard M. Nixon tried that defense. Didn't work.

Steve CrickmoreYou... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Steve Crickmore

You are truly an idiot.

From your article

"Nobody who has a halfway decent chance of winning a Senate race is going to give it up to sit on an advisory board. That would be a laughable tradeoff.""

If what Clinton offered Sestak was a "laughable tradeoff" (if the white house is to be believed) then why would Clinton even waste his time making the offer. Why would Rahmbo even bothering sending an Expresident to make such a laughable offer? People at that level dont make "Laughable offers".

Saying all that.

I doubt anything will come of this unless as I said above it Hillary can use to torpedo Obama in 2012. And with Bill Clinton being one of the key players I wouldnt put it past her at all. It doesnt even to be made public. Bill can go to Obama and say "you know buddy, I seem to recall that Sestak thing where you told me to offer him a paying position for not running and then you threatened HIllary's job to cover it up" to get Obama out of the way in 2012.

If Bill had to go public he could do so in time to sink Obama's campaign and go cry on TV about how he has such remorse covering things up and Hillary didnt know anything about it. "I am admitting to a cover up of a crime, why would I lie about Hillary's involvment?" I can even see an immunity deal against Clinton in exchange for full cooperation.

More on Barry's 'SUPPORT' f... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

More on Barry's 'SUPPORT' for Arlen:

(Politico)
Just last year, the White House was crowing about Specter's conversion to the Democratic Party, and Obama pledged, "He will have my full support."

Specter's campaign tried to woo Obama to the city as late as last week. But the White House politely rebuffed them several times, saying the president simply couldn't carve out the time for a 45-minute flight north, according to people familiar with the situation.

That means the 80-year-old Republican-turned-Democrat will have to settle for Obama's image on a campaign ad proclaiming "I love Arlen Specter" - and a weekend conference call the president held with black Pennsylvania clergy.

Vice President Joe Biden, a close friend of Specter's who helped engineer the Pennsylvanian's switch, will be in Philadelphia Monday night for a commencement address but had no plans to appear with his former colleague.


"Where is the q... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

"Where is the quid pro quo?" Painter asked. "Nobody who has a halfway decent chance of winning a Senate race is going to give it up to sit on an advisory board. That would be a laughable tradeoff."

Sure - we all agree that that would be true if it were a position on an advisory board. But Sestak explicitly said he was offered a position to get out of the race, and we all agree that an advisory board position wouldn't budge the needle on getting him out of the race. So either Sestak lied about that, or you've just blown up the White House's cover story. It's that simple.

You know, this ridiculous i... (Below threshold)
jim m:

You know, this ridiculous idea that he was offered a non-paying job to drop out of the race and there was no quid pro quo makes me miss Bill Clinton.

Seriously. The one thing Bill could do well and do convincingly was lie. Barry lies as much or more than Clinton and every one of them is absurdly unbelievable.

But..but...but...Obama woul... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

But..but...but...Obama wouldn't do anything sneaky and underhanded or UNETHICAL in a polictical race! Except for those times he was running in Chicago.....BUT THAT WAS DIFFERENT!

Right, jimmy?
Right, Stevie?

Steve Crickmore wrote:<br /... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

Steve Crickmore wrote:

"Where is the quid pro quo?" Painter asked. "Nobody who has a halfway decent chance of winning a Senate race is going to give it up to sit on an advisory board. That would be a laughable tradeoff."

THIS is your defense? If the bribe isn't good enough, it's not a crime?

Sheez.

"THIS is your defense? If t... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"THIS is your defense? If the bribe isn't good enough, it's not a crime? "

Remember this is a bribe coming from the idiot who gave the (partially Blind) British Prime Minister a bunch of unusable DVD's as a diplomatic gift. Trying to bribe someone with no money would seem about his speed.

Hey! Barry's not CHEAP!</p... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Hey! Barry's not CHEAP!

So the Queen got an iPod with Barry's speeches on it. So the PM's kids got a couple plastic toys from the White House Gift Shop.

At least they removed the price tags first!

Them Obamarrhoids sure are ... (Below threshold)

Them Obamarrhoids sure are desperate to sweep this story off the front page, aren't they? Last time I saw anything like this they were insisting that suborning perjury and abuse of power were "really just all about sex."

Dudes, if you really want us to think there's nothing to this, you might consider spewing less spittle.

No, "pardon" means you'r... (Below threshold)

No, "pardon" means you're 'forgiven'. The president has NO authority to "OVERTURN" a conviction.

You're welcome.

Oh, ok. So Scooter wasn't forgiven, President Bush maintained he was still guilty as sin. Bush just didn't have to pay any fines.

Whoops! My bad. I stand corrected again. :) : ) :)

jimmy and Stevie will duck ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

jimmy and Stevie will duck over to DU and DK to pick up some more talking points, I can imagine the conversation:

"Crap, they're not buying it! THINK! Oh, and thanks for the earlier link that blew up in my face. Even Lee Ward posted that one, and he took off like a scalded cat afterwards!

So far, here's their argument:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zgeQmzV9kk

there's only 2 choices here... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

there's only 2 choices here:

(a) Clinton DID offer Sestak something. If true then there is NO WAY it was just a pair of White House cuff-links. And thus it would have to have some reasonable guarantee from the Obama Regime...or Bill wouldn't offer it in the first place.

(b) Clinton did NOT offer Sestak anything...but is being put in the role because it adds another non-Obama Regime voice to what will now be declared a "garbled message"...like the childrens game of "Telephone".

Which means there IS a truth worth digging up. Where o' where is a Woodward or a Bernstein?? Are there ANY journalists (outside FoxNews) willing to question The One??

Bush just didn't made it so... (Below threshold)

Bush just didn't made it so that Libby didn't have to pay any fines, that is.

Or rather, serve time...oka... (Below threshold)

Or rather, serve time...okay, enough with that tangent...

"Bush just didn't have to p... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Bush just didn't have to pay any fines."

Wrong (again). You're on a roll.

Scooter did pay a fine. Only his SENTENCE was commuted. Bush let the conviction stand.

Sorry folks, but it's been ... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

Sorry folks, but it's been a long week. As to the jim x claim that a primary candidate doesn't come under the statute, here's language from 18 USCS § 600:

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any . . . benefit . . . to any person as consideration, favor, or reward . . . in connection with any primary election . . . shall be fined . . . or imprisoned . .

Guilty.

jim x, nobody is using K... (Below threshold)

jim x, nobody is using Karl Rove as an ethics expert.

No one, including me. I'm using the actual lawyer hired by the Bush administration to be in charge of ethics, Richard Painter.

Yet the fact that Reagan... (Below threshold)

Yet the fact that Reagan wasnt found guilty of anything doesnt stop you from bringing him up.

Go see my post # 99. I"m pointing out that this is not an illegal offense, and I'm using the fact that Reagan did this without even being investigated for it as my evidence.

"I"m pointing out that this... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"I"m pointing out that this is not an illegal offense, and I'm using the fact that Reagan did this without even being investigated for it as my evidence."

....and even though I've been shown my arguement is full of crap, I'm sticking with this turd until it's polished to a high sheen.

Ever beat a dead horse, jimmy? At some point, you gotta realize it's dead. Really no cause to beat it further.

Goodnight....and good news......

GarandFan, your own quote s... (Below threshold)

GarandFan, your own quote shows you're wrong.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton will leave office free of the prospect of criminal charges after he admitted Friday that he knowingly gave misleading testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in a 1998 lawsuit.

Perjury is very specific: it means lying or making misleading statements on matters which are relevant to the matter before the court.

But Clinton was misleading about a matter he considered irrelevant - whether he'd been with another woman out of wedlock, in a case that was laughed out of the court by the judge.

Clinton was not convicted of the charge of perjury, and therefore is innocent of the charge of perjury.

So Armitage is the leak ... (Below threshold)

So Armitage is the leak and you still want to convict Cheney of it? Boy you are really reaching arent you.

What I would like is for the matter to have been investigated as far as it went. If Cheney is innocent, he's got nothing to fear right? You know, law and order - that old canard. Just call me a conservative I guess.

Clinton was not co... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
Clinton was not convicted of the charge of perjury, and therefore is innocent of the charge of perjury.

He wasn't convicted of a crime. But, Clinton was disbarred by Arkansas because of his perjury. He was also disbarred by the US Supreme Court, which walked out of his State of Union address to show its disrespect because of his perjury.

Maybe Clinton should have had your unique legal perspective to present to those courts.

But, this is not relevant, is it?

How about defending Obama on the language of the statute? Can you?

OK, but still and all, w... (Below threshold)

OK, but still and all, what would Obama have to do, in your book, to break this particular law?

For me to consider something bribery, I guess it has to have two parts:

a) Offer someone either money, or something worth monetary value such as Real Estate, stocks, bonds etc., or a paid position

in order to

b) get them to do something which violates the legal or ethical parameters of their job, which they agreed to by taking that job

So if Obama offered Sestak a paid position in his administration, or a cash bribe of $50,000, in order to make some legislative decision, that would be bribery according to both that law and to me.

"Bush just didn't have t... (Below threshold)

"Bush just didn't have to pay any fines."

Wrong (again). You're on a roll.

Go see the next post, # 126.

Apology accepted. As if this quibble matters anyway - what you seem to be missing is that commuting a sentence is *worse* than pardoning it - and if pardoning doesn't overturn a conviction, that means Scooter is still guilty even before the eyes of the law.

So your correcting me is actually showing that Scooter was more guilty, not less. :) :)

So, thanks. Please, keep correcting me on this topic. : )

I get the feeling that Lee ... (Below threshold)
Michael:

I get the feeling that Lee and jim x are butt buddies.

" (Clinton) ADMITTED Friday... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

" (Clinton) ADMITTED Friday that he KNOWINGLY gave MISLEADING testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky"

Perjury: Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding.

"he admitted Friday, that he knowingly gave misleading testimony"

Misleading: Facts or statements that may be misstated, distorted, and arranged in such a manner as to obscure and conceal material aspects.

Under an agreement with Independent Counsel Robert Ray, Clinton's law license will be suspended for five years and he will pay a $25,000 fine to Arkansas bar officials. He also gave up any claim to repayment of his legal fees in the matter. In return, Ray will end the 7-year-old Whitewater probe that has shadowed most of Clinton's two terms.

Rather than push it, Billy Bob 'cut a deal'.

For someone who DID NOTHING, he paid a heavy PENALTY.


....and even though I've... (Below threshold)

....and even though I've been shown my arguement is full of crap, I'm sticking with this turd until it's polished to a high sheen.

Actually I think that's true about the diarheaa-turd slushie of talking points that you love to keep drinking. So nyah nyah there.

I get the feeling that Mich... (Below threshold)

I get the feeling that Michael is butt buddies with himself. That's why his other self answered him in the comments.

He wasn't convicted of a... (Below threshold)

He wasn't convicted of a crime

Alright then. Thanks for finally admitting this. That means then that the argument I was responding to comment in # 75 was proven wrong.

Taking Momma out to dinner ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Taking Momma out to dinner jimmy. You go ahead and stay, polishing that turd that no one else but you is buying.

Hell, even Lee Ward isn't backing your play tonight.

Perjury: Perjury, also k... (Below threshold)

Perjury: Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding.

Uh huh. Now notice the key part *in your own quote* -

concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding.

See that?

Thank you for proving me right with your own quote.

Why does that matter? You can google as well as I can. But here's a nice summation why:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html

Furthermore, not all lying under oath is perjury. The lie must be material - that is, important or relevant to the case. A murder suspect who falsely testifies that he ate cereal in jail that morning cannot be prosecuted for perjury over that irrelevant lie. (1)

Have a problem with that? Don't get mad at me. That's how the law is. As I pointed out to you, back in comment # 132.

You go ahead and stay, p... (Below threshold)

You go ahead and stay, polishing that turd that no one else but you is buying.

You go ahead and keep slamming back that diarheea slushy, and keep pretending that it tastes like clear sweet water.

He wasn't convicte... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
He wasn't convicted of a crime

Alright then. Thanks for finally admitting this. That means then that the argument I was responding to comment in # 75 was proven wrong.

Not quite. Not everyone who commits a felony is convicted. Not everyone who commits perjury is convicted, either, but some of them are disbarred.

But, let me direct you back to the point--show that Obama has not violated the statute I have quoted. Go on, try.

a) Offer someon... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

a) Offer someone either money, or something worth monetary value such as Real Estate, stocks, bonds etc., or a paid position

OK, this is a start. "Something worth monetary value..." How about offering something is not itself monetary, but that can be turned into income? For example, access to a powerful person can be turned into income - it's called "influence peddling." The powerful person doesn't pay you himself, but puts you in a position where others pay you. (Btw, influence peddling is also illegal.) Endorsing your upcoming book (and/or hooking you up with a willing publisher) would be another example.

Let's broaden our horizons further. What if Rahm Emanuel promised to blow Sestak if he dropped out? (And please, don't tell me Rahm doesn't roll that way, although I doubt Sestak does.) No cash involved. Still bribery.

The point is that bribery, which is what we're talking about, need only involve "consideration" - something of value - and that need not be cash.

Note that bribery is closely related to blackmail, the difference being in whether one offers an inducement to another, or promises to withhold a harm.

But let's bring this back to closure. Suppose it turns out that Sestak was offered a remunerated position to drop out? Do you then agree that someone should be prosecuted?

Before answering, consider that clearly the whole idea behind the White House's explanation was to dodge the bullet by claiming the position wasn't paid. On its face, this is laughable, because why would Sestak stand down from a Senate seat to serve unpaid on the PTA, or whatever?

It stinks. It stinks to high heaven.

Rather than push it, Bil... (Below threshold)

Rather than push it, Billy Bob 'cut a deal'.

For someone who DID NOTHING, he paid a heavy PENALTY.

Let me try my best to make this side topic clear for you.

a) lying in court is not necessarily perjury. Perjury has a narrower definition which includes that the lie has to be relevant to the current court case in session.

This means that, while Clinton did lie in court, he was not guilty of perjury because he lied about matters which he did not consider relevant.

b) This is why Clinton was ***not even indicted*** on criminal charges of perjury by Kenneth Starr or Robert Ray. This is also why Clinton was *acquitted* of perjury charges by the Senate.

c) Law associations do not and cannot put someone on trial for perjury. Perjury is a matter for the courts. Organizations such as the Arkansas can and do disbarr people for what they consider unethical conduct - which is a far looser definition.

d) once again (!) in your own quote, you prove me right and yourself wrong.

Under an agreement with Independent Counsel Robert Ray, Clinton's law license will be suspended for five years and he will pay a $25,000 fine to Arkansas bar officials. He also gave up any claim to repayment of his legal fees in the matter. In return, Ray will end the 7-year-old Whitewater probe that has shadowed most of Clinton's two terms

It says that in return Ray would end the probe. It mentions nothing about perjury, at all.

hey jim x...OBAMA is the Pr... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

hey jim x...OBAMA is the President.

The bullshit being shoveled at America regarding the bribing of Sestak is OBAMA's...all his. No blaming BUSH!!! for this one!

Not everyone who commits... (Below threshold)

Not everyone who commits a felony is convicted.

There's this little matter of "innocent until proven guilty".

Lee and jim x are definitel... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Lee and jim x are definitely butt buddies.

How about offering somet... (Below threshold)

How about offering something is not itself monetary, but that can be turned into income? For example, access to a powerful person can be turned into income - it's called "influence peddling."

If influence peddling is actually what's being offered, then that's illegal - but it also requires the second part, where the person agrees to do something that is otherwise against the job they've taken.

An indirect offer of an unpaid position on a committee, in return for dropping out of a primary, doesn't fulfill either of those requirements.

Michael and Michael are def... (Below threshold)

Michael and Michael are definitely butt buddies. Not that there's anything wrong with that. He just better not let the rest of the conservatives know.

Let's broaden our horizo... (Below threshold)

Let's broaden our horizons further. What if Rahm Emanuel promised to blow Sestak if he dropped out? (And please, don't tell me Rahm doesn't roll that way, although I doubt Sestak does.) No cash involved. Still bribery.

Let's broaden our horizons still further than that. Let's say Ronald Reagan's VP George H. W. Bush offered to blow Hayakawa if he dropped out.

That would not be perjury - because Hayakawa would not be violating the legal requirements of his position.

Jim xAl Capone was... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jim x

Al Capone was never convicted of murder. Do you think he was guilty of it.

You are waving false flags. Reagan was never convicted of anything. Clinton wasnt. Neither has Obama. We arent talking about being convicted of it. We are talking about being guilty of breaking the law.

Stop with the straw men.

As I basically stated above, investigate them all and see what shakes out. You seem to be against an investigation of Obama or him going to trial for this. After all what did you say about Cheney? If he isnt guilty of anything he has nothing to worry about right? Yet you dont seem to have the same standard for Obama.

Maybe Clinton should hav... (Below threshold)

Maybe Clinton should have had your unique legal perspective to present to those courts.

Obviously, Clinton did have the same perspective - as did Kenneth Starr, Robert Ray, and the majority of Senators who acquitted him.

Which means, of course, that my perspective is not unique. It's just another example of reality having a liberal bias.

Jim X"There's this... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jim X

"There's this little matter of "innocent until proven guilty"

True

So hey lets have a trial.

Dont come up and say that Obama shouldnt be arrested for appearing to break the law. I mean the lefties were in fits over getting Bush and Cheney to trial. hell you still have you copatriots CODE PINK trying to arrest Cheney or Rove at book signings. The folks on your side are so intereted in having trials lets have Obama on trial to see if he is guilty or not.

After all

"If Obama is innocent, he's got nothing to fear right? You know, law and order - that old canard. Just call me a conservative I guess."


He was also disbarred by... (Below threshold)

He was also disbarred by the US Supreme Court, which walked out of his State of Union address to show its disrespect because of his perjury.

And wow, you want to talk about a unique legal perspective - Clinton was not only NOT disbarred by the Supreme Court, I don't think it's possible for ANYONE to be disbarred by the SCOTUS.

jim x wrote:<blockquo... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

jim x wrote:

Not everyone who commits a felony is convicted.

There's this little matter of "innocent until proven guilty".

So, Richard Nixon was not guilty of an impeachable offense?

To the ancillary point: #75 never claimed that Clinton was convicted of perjury, only that he committed it. The Arkansas Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court (and a US District Court) decided that Clinton committed perjury. Those courts do have a standard of proof and decided that Clinton committed perjury. Thus, Clinton committed perjury.

You lose.

To the main point--explain how Obama did not violate the federal statute that everyone here has cited.

You cannot, can you?

You lose.

Let me direct you back t... (Below threshold)

Let me direct you back to the point--show that Obama has not violated the statute I have quoted. Go on, try.

If you mean this statute?

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any . . . benefit . . . to any person as consideration, favor, or reward . . . in connection with any primary election . . . shall be fined . . . or imprisoned . .

... then once again, here's what an actual legal ethics expert from the Bush administration says. Key parts in bold:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/bush_ethics_chief_to_gop_time.html

Painter also took issue with the notion that the version of events aired by the White House today could in any way be illegal. Republicans point to a Federal statute that prohibits any promises of "employment" as a "reward for any political activity."

But Painter says applying this to the Sestak situation is a big stretch. He argued that the sort of "political activity" referred to in the statute concerns political activity you might do for someone else, not actions you might take on your own behalf, such as dropping out of a race.

For instance, he said, this statute prevents things like the offer of a job to someone in exchange for their support for a particular candidate. "I cannot see how this statute can be reasonably applied to a candidate's own decision on whether to run in an election," Painter said.

"Based on the information disclosed from the White House, it's even more apparent that this is a non issue," Painter said. "No scandal. Time to move on."

And there you have it.

Woo.

Clinton was not on... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
Clinton was not only NOT disbarred by the Supreme Court, I don't think it's possible for ANYONE to be disbarred by the SCOTUS.

Really?

http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/News/ClintonDisbar-011001.htm

How about this:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/11/09/clinton.bar/

If you want, I'll dig up the actual language of the SCOTUS disbarring Billy. Do you want?

Instead, how about discussing how Obama's actions do not violate the federal criminal statute?

You are in way over your head, honey.

Al Capone was never conv... (Below threshold)

Al Capone was never convicted of murder. Do you think he was guilty of it.

Almost certainly. The thing is with Capone we are dealing with

a) historical facts including witnesses, dead and disappearing bodies, and other actual evidence, and

b) actual laws that clearly prohibit killing people

In this Sestak case, we have

a) a bunch of people yelling "Crime!" over a common situation that all politicians of all parties get involved in, that

b) according to actual legal experts is actually not in violation of the law.

We arent talking about being convicted of it. We are talking about being guilty of breaking the law.

In that case too, Obama is not guilty of breaking the law.

As I basically stated above, investigate them all and see what shakes out.

Investigation requires a crime to have occurred.

According to Bush's own professional legal expert on ethics, among many other expert lawyers, this situation with Sestak was not a crime.

You seem to be against an investigation of Obama or him going to trial for this.

I am not against an investigation into this. What I'm telling you is that the investigation is basically concluded: this is not a crime, therefore there isn't anything here to investigate.

After all what did you say about Cheney? If he isnt guilty of anything he has nothing to worry about right?

That's right. But in Cheney's case, there actually was a crime - the deliberate blowing of a CIA agent's cover in retribution for that agent's spouse, a private citizen, telling the truth against the Bush/Cheney administration's wishes.

Yet you dont seem to have the same standard for Obama.

I have exactly the same standard. If President Obama actually commits something that is a crime, then he should be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

But - as the example with Reagan makes clear - this is so far from being a crime that it isn't even a peccadillo.

Honestly, seriously, it's the Republican party trying to look like they're doing something, rather than even fight for something concrete that YOU GUYS want.

It won't even give you a conviction of President Obama - because this will never even make it to a court, it really is that laughable. Go ask any lawyer who doesn't have a vested interest in this circus, and tell me if they say any different.

jim x wrote:<blockquo... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

jim x wrote:

"I cannot see how this statute can be reasonably applied to a candidate's own decision on whether to run in an election," Painter said.

I can.

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any . . . benefit . . . to any person as consideration, favor, or reward . . . in connection with any primary election . . .

Pretty simple. There's that "in connection" language, isn't there. Argue the language of the statute, sugar--don't keep quoting dumbass hacks. Do something on your own for once.

Again, you lose.


Well iwogisdead, I stand co... (Below threshold)

Well iwogisdead, I stand corrected - it appears that the SCOTUS can disbarr lawyers.

However you will notice, from the page you cited -

The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.

The court did not explain its reasons, but Supreme Court disbarment often follows disbarment in lower courts.

- that the SCOTUS disbarment proceeds from disbarment in the lower courts - which indicates that it occurred because of the Arkansas disbarment. Which seems a courtesy of superior courts to recognize the disbarment of lawyers for lower courts.

However, I did say that the SCOTUS did not disbar Clinton, and I was wrong.

I can.Good.... (Below threshold)

I can.

Good. You'll please pardon me for taking the word of a legal expert in the subject matter, in addition to the fact that his arguments also make sense to me.

So me personally, I say that again you lose.

But hey, who knows? Maybe you're right. The way you guys are gunning for President Obama, if there's a single chance he's guilty of something it'll be pursued to the ends of the Earth.

I guess we'll see how it plays out.

Jim XAgain you wan... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jim X

Again you want your own facts

"the deliberate blowing of a CIA agent's cover in retribution for that agent's spouse, a private citizen, telling the truth against the Bush/Cheney administration's wishes."

a. Plame was not undercover.

b. She was clearly listed as Wilson's wife in his autobiography.

c. Armitage leaked her name but he was not gone after by the libs. You talk about gunning for Obama yet you totally ignore that the whole matter dropped off the face of the earth once Armitage was known to have leaked the name. If there was a crime here then why wasnt Armitage prosecuted? Charged? Was he even questioned? Yet you have no problem calling for Cheney to be investigated when you dont want Obama investigated for possibly having violated the law (regardless of the sideliners who said that he didnt). No investigation has taken place. NONE. Just a WH press release. Are you saying that Bush could have issued a WH press release saying "Cheney did no wrong in the Plame case" and saved the taxpayers millions? That is what you are saying with Obama.

And again there is no call for investigation by the libs of the NY Times source who DID LEAK UNDERCOVER CIA AGENTS NAMES.

You are twisting facts (which you always do) and totally ignoring things (Which you always do) which dont fit your narrative.

And again.This won... (Below threshold)
retired military:

And again.

This wont mount to a hill of beans unless it can help Hillary in 2012. other than that it is DOA as is anything else with Obama especially with the news media covering his ass.

jim x wrote:<blockquo... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

jim x wrote:

You'll please pardon me for taking the word of a legal expert in the subject matter, in addition to the fact that his arguments also make sense to me.

Which word is that? The word that a "candidate" doesn't include someone running in a primary, even though the statute says it does? The word that a "bribe" isn't a "bribe" unless it has enough value?

jim x, try thinking for yourself a little. As for me, I'm old and worn out, and tired of kicking your ass, so I'm going to bed. G'nite.

My opinion on this matter a... (Below threshold)
retired military:

My opinion on this matter and others.

a. Republicans are wasting their time getting excited over this. Even if there were video of Obama offering Sestak a bribe and a higher paying job to drop out of the race nothing would happen. The media is going to cover his ass and say it is much ado about nothing. The same way with Clinton when he committed perjury. ( except for Jim X will say he didnt commmit perjury because he wasnt convicted of it even though Al Capone did commit murder even if he wasnt convicted of it).

b. Furor will get raised for the republicans in Congress to do due diligance for their voters and then the matter will be dropped. The same way the libs did with Bush (except they did it for everything Bush did including breathing).

c. the libs are pissed because they dont like their own medicine thrown back in their faces yet again (note Jim X response on Clinton committing perjury and the Cheney Plame affair).

d. Obama has, by this action, shown himself yet again to be not only imcompetent but contemptous of the American people. yet some people (Jim X comes to mind) will mouth his talking points the same way there are people (JIM X comes to mind) who will swear Clinton didnt commit perjury and he didnt have sex with Lewinsky (Jim Try telling your wife that a hooker giving you a BJ isnt having sex and see what her reaction is).

e. In 2 weeks this will go away and we will be confronted with the next Obama bungle which pops up.

jim x, try thinking for ... (Below threshold)

jim x, try thinking for yourself a little.

I am. That's why I think you're wrong. I"m citing Richard Painter to show that it's not just limited to me - a proven legal expert who's definitely impartial also thinks you're wrong.

As for me, I'm old and worn out, and tired of kicking your ass, so I'm going to bed. G'nite.

I understand. Imagining things which haven't occurred - like "kicking my ass" when you have actually lost - must be very tiring.

So on that note, good night as well. : )

Sigh.yet some p... (Below threshold)

Sigh.

yet some people (Jim X comes to mind) will mouth his talking points the same way there are people (JIM X comes to mind) who will swear Clinton didnt commit perjury

Retired military, the fact that Clinton did NOT commit perjury is not a talking point. It is a legal and historical fact.

Perhaps what's going on here is, you aren't clear on what Clinton lied about in a court of law.

I've cited this before, but I don't think you've read it. If not, you should read it now. I think it will make this matter clear for you.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html

and he didnt have sex with Lewinsky (Jim Try telling your wife that a hooker giving you a BJ isnt having sex and see what her reaction is).

A wife won't care whether it's sex or not.

But - and perhaps here you might even agree with me here, retired military - a wife can be a far harsher judge than any you might meet in a court of a law.

Bottom line: Someone in the... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Bottom line: Someone in the Obama Administration is going down.

Someone puzzle me this...</... (Below threshold)
Marc:

Someone puzzle me this...

The very title of the press release says "Memorandum from White House Counsel Regarding the Review of Discussions Relating to Congressman Sestak"

It claims there was a single discussion between Sestak and Clinton not "discussions".

Hell the first para cites "Discussions" three times yet the entire thing is about a single one.

Odd, at least, shyster legalese at worst. And BTW Sestak's original quote from the Larry Kane show on Feb. 18(19?) plainly indicated it was more than a single discussion.

I also find it strange Sestak has never denied being offered the Secretary of the Navy job.

The biggest whopper of all is we are to believe a sitting Congressman, with thoughts of gaining a more prestigious and higher paying Senate seat would actually be enticed to sit out that primary for a non-paying bullshit position called "Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board" and STILL be serving in the lower house of Congress.

Riiiight... and the emails I get addressed to "undisclosed recipient" are from Cathrine Zeta Jones requesting I become part of a threesome with Jeniffer Aniston.

And all this took THREE months to sort out?

jim x - "But - and perh... (Below threshold)
Marc:

jim x - "But - and perhaps here you might even agree with me here, retired military - a wife can be a far harsher judge than any you might meet in a court of a law."

Really?, Then show me a wife, that's not a Judge, that puts you behind bars for life, or worse sits you down in "Old Skarky."

Some marriages have themsel... (Below threshold)

Some marriages have themselves been compared to life imprisonment.

Also some wives have definitely electrocuted their husbands.

the Leftist trolls on this ... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

the Leftist trolls on this site have earned their dog food tonight. they are defending the President doling out high-ranking government jobs in exchange for political favors.

The Left is FINE with this...because Fidel Obama is in charge.

Pathetic.

Regarding the "offers" give... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Regarding the "offers" given Sestak.

The left says it cannot be the SecNav, because there is a law against Sestak serving in that position. Yes there is a law. And Sestak will be legally eligible to fill that position as of July 23, 2010.

The White House say that Sestak was offered an "unpaid" advisory position. There are currently only TWO "unpaid" advisory boards. The only one that would 'fit' Sestak is the one related to Intelligence. Unfortunately for the White House and the left - there is another LAW that states a sitting Representative cannot fill such a position. So that blows the White House statement that Sestak could fill both positions at the same time.

G'night.

never!!... (Below threshold)
914:

never!!

I claim Barry's a lamebrain... (Below threshold)
914:

I claim Barry's a lamebraind idioooott! But no one listen to the music!

Jim XThe oath says... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jim X

The oath says to TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

When you start parsing IS it kinda shoots that middle part down the tubes. When you start talking about "technically true" (from your article it shoots that middle part down the tubes.

When you are asked if you are alone with someone and you say "You are never really alone in the White House" and you have an intern on her knees giving you a BJ it shoots that middle part down the tubes.

When you say you didnt have sex with someone and she has a semen stained dress from the BJ it is a lie under oath. When you lie under oath and try to get someone else to lie under oath about an ongoing investigation than that is against the law. No matter how much you Clinton Pscophants want to call it.

If Bush had done the same thing you would (and rightfully so) want him to be convicted of it.

Instead Bush and Cheney apparnatly did nothing illegal and yet you and your lib friends still want to lock them up.

You want to give Clinton a pass and Obama a pass yet you want a full investigation on Cheney (after a year long one has already been done) when someone else has admitted to doing what you accuse CHeney of doing. Yet a letter from the Obama WH saying "Nothing improper here" fully satisifies you on this matter.

That is called HYPOCRACY. Look it up.


And again folksTHI... (Below threshold)
retired military:

And again folks

THIS ISSUE IS GOING NOWHERE UNLESS HILLARY CAN BENEFIT FROM IT FOR 2012 AND THEN MOST LIKELY IT WILL BE BEHIND THE SCENES.

a. There will be no impeachment of Obama no matter what he does as long as dems are in charge of Congress.

b. In Jan when the new congress gets seated there will be no impeachment then no matter who is in charge.

c. Sestak could say that he was offered the sun, moon, stars and millions of dollars not to run and it would go nowhere politically.

d. Clinton could confirm that Sestak told the truth in C and it still woudnt matter.

e. The MSM will fall in line with Obama and fall on their swords.

f. The Justice dept will not investigate anything.

g. Obama fans (JIm X, Lee Ward, among others) will continue to flaunt incidents like this in front of conservatives and there is little if anything we can do because the system wont do anything against Obama. All we can do is apply the same standards that the Libs applied against Bush for 8 years and laugh at them for squirming like the little girls they are when they cry about it.

BTW If Hillary isn... (Below threshold)
retired military:

BTW

If Hillary isnt at the top of the ticket in 2012 you can bet she will be in the VP slot.

Wow, some of our liberal fr... (Below threshold)
John:

Wow, some of our liberal friends are sure loosy goosy with the law these days. Sure is a different posture than say oh 2 or 3 years ago huh? Jim X being the experienced federal judge his is has declared NOT GUITY next case please. He sites the wrong law as proof the law wasn't broken. I'm gonna try that next time I get a speeding ticket, "but your honor I never jay walked so I'm not sure why I'm even here." If that fails I mention that Reagan was speeding while he was president so that should mean it's ok for me, Nixon too. Did you notice that none of the others that have sinned were democrats? Funny for some, Republicans are the only people that break the law or act unethically, and of course conservatives are the only species capable of hipcoracy.

This is of course a really minor deal on it's face, the problem is going to be the same problem politians always have, trying to cover it up. A smart president that was commited to CHANGE would have just stood up and said this is wrong. But like I said that would require a NEW TONE in Washington, something I'm quite sure we're not going to see anytime soon.

Wow, alomst 1/3 of all comm... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Wow, alomst 1/3 of all comments are jim x.

"Wow, alomst 1/3 of all com... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"Wow, alomst 1/3 of all comments are jim x."

He has to get his "i Love Obama" quota in for the month.

This just in, from the effi... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

This just in, from the effing New York Times, no less:

Sestak was ineligible for job Clinton offered

It is now being claimed tha... (Below threshold)

It is now being claimed that what former United States Navy Perfumed Prince (AKA Little Rock admiral) Sestak unequivocally called the offer of "a job," the white house gang and its attendant Goebelsesque propagandists and pamphleteers (AKA the "mass media") are now calling an "unpaid position on the (pretender's) Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board."

That is, a sitting congressman was offered that he simultaneously hold jobs in two branches of gummint?

We are asked to believe this crap?

"In a little-noticed passag... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"In a little-noticed passage Friday, the New York Times reported that Rep. Joe Sestak was not eligible for a place on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, the job he was reportedly offered by former President Bill Clinton. And indeed a look at the Board's website reveals this restriction: ..."

from Jay G's WashingtonExaminer.com link above




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy