Obama Administration Bribery?

Mumbles said:
If we took *your* interpretation, it would be illegal for candidates to pay their campaign staff.
Click to expand...

Yep, you nailed it right there. I really like how a previous poster pointed out the unusual amount of ellipses in the quote. When you see...and...that usually means relevant information is being hidden from you.
 
fullflavormenthol said:
Yep, you nailed it right there. I really like how a previous poster pointed out the unusual amount of ellipses in the quote. When you see...and...that usually means relevant information is being hidden from you.
Click to expand...

..."A previous poster"?
 
Even if it were a blatant quid pro quo, a literal, "Do this and I'll appoint you to X office", I'm not sure it would violate the law. Exactly who would be soliciting or receiving what in exchange for the appointment.

Is a promise not to run for Senate a "thing of value"?
 
http://townhall.com/columnists/Mich...ind_the_white_housesestak_stonewall?page=full

After three months of zipped lips and feigned ignorance, the Obama White House is finally taking real heat over Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak's consistent claims that the administration offered him a job to drop his Senate bid. Now it's time to redirect the spotlight where it belongs: on the top counsel behind the Washington stonewall, Bob "The Silencer" Bauer.

On Sunday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs glibly asserted that "lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak. And nothing inappropriate happened." With whom were these conversations had? Gibbs won't say. Neither will Attorney General Eric Holder, who dismissed "hypotheticals" when questioned about Sestak's allegations last week on Capitol Hill by GOP Rep. Darrell Issa of California. Holder is simply taking his cue from the commander-in-chief's personal lawyer and Democratic Party legal boss.

You see, on March 10, Issa also sent a letter to Bauer, the White House counsel to the president, requesting specifics: Did White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel contact Sestak? Did White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina (whom another Democrat, U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff, has accused of offering a cabinet position in exchange for his withdrawal)? How about the White House Office of Political Affairs? Any other individuals? What position(s) was/were offered in exchange for Sestak's withdrawal? And what, if any, steps did Bauer take to investigate possible criminal activity?

Bauer's answers? Zip. Nada. Zilch. .

... snip ...

With not one, not two, but three Democrats (Sestak, Romanoff and Blagojevich) all implicating the agent of Hope and Change in dirty backroom schemes, "Trust Us" ain't gonna cut it. Neither will "Shut Up and Go Away." What did Bob "The Silencer" Bauer know, when did he know it, and how long does the Most Transparent Administration Ever plan to play dodgeball with the public?
Click to expand...
 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...l-for-sestak-special-prosecutor-94951914.html

Today all seven Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder urging Holder to appoint a special investigator to probe Rep. Joe Sestak’s allegations against the White House.

Last February, Sestak said the Obama White House offered him a high-ranking government job if Sestak would refrain from challenging Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary. Sestak declined and last week won the Democratic nomination. Sestak has repeated his charge on several occasions but refuses to say who at the White House offered the job or what was said. The White House says nothing improper happened but has offered no details.

“The allegations in this matter are very serious and, if true, suggest a possible violation of various federal criminal laws intended to safeguard our political process from the taint of bribes and political machine manipulation,” the GOP senators say in the letter to Holder. “The White House cannot possibly manage an internal investigation of potential criminal misconduct while simultaneously crafting a public narrative to rebut the claim that misconduct occurred.”

The senators point to a statement made this week by top White House adviser David Axelrod who, while denying that anything inappropriate took place, conceded that if Sestak’s claims were true, it would be “a serious breach of the law.” Turning Axelrod’s words against the administration, the senators write, “We do not believe the Department of Justice can properly defer to White House lawyers to investigate a matter that could involve a ’serious breach of the law.’”

The GOP lawmakers point out that there is plenty of precedent for an investigation. “Such an action would square with the department’s appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate suspected White House misconduct in the Plame matter in 2003,” the senators write. If the Justice Department rejects a special prosecutor, as an alternative the senators suggest referring the matter to the Department’s Public Integrity Section or to the U.S. Attorney in Washington.
Click to expand...
 
I like Sestak's opening bid in the campaign for Senate:

"I'm the Democrat."

Specter was probably playing catch up from that point on, if he ever had a chance.

DR
 
This … from the leftist LA Times …

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-sestak-20100527,0,4865824.story

It's no secret that the Obama administration wanted Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) to drop his primary challenge to Republican-turned-Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter. But did President Obama's representatives try to entice Sestak into leaving the race by promising him a job? It's a simple question, and one that Sestak already has answered in the affirmative, but the administration continues to treat the issue as much ado about nothing.

Actually, it's much ado about something. Yes, political factors often influence appointments in unsavory ways — witness the practice of awarding ambassadorships to campaign contributors. But as Rep. Darrell Issa of Vista, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, points out, a federal statute makes it a crime, punishable by a fine or a year's imprisonment, to offer a job to someone "as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party."

We seldom agree with Issa, but in this case we believe his questions deserve a response. Sestak too owes Congress and the public a thorough explanation. After raising the issue when he was challenging Specter, he has turned coy. Now that he's the Democratic nominee, his position is that further details are "for others to talk about."

"Others" means the administration, which has been evasive about whether a job was discussed with Sestak, and if so, what it was and who made the overture. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has said that conversations between the administration and Sestak "weren't inappropriate in any way." If that's the case, why not describe those conversations in detail?
Click to expand...
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/27/obamas-watergate/

The White House is facing a major scandal - one that threatens to bring down President Obama. It could be his Watergate.

Rep. Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Democrat, is the man at the center of the growing political storm. He reconfirmed this week his allegation that a senior White House official offered him a high-ranking job in exchange for withdrawing from the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary. It is widely believed the position was that of secretary of the Navy.

… snip …

The White House is now in deep trouble. Either Mr. Sestak is lying, which means he is unfit to represent the people of Pennsylvania, or he is telling the truth: the White House offered him a senior post. Mr. Sestak has consistently told the same story for months. He has no reason to lie.

If true - and I believe it is - then the Obama administration has committed a serious felony. The White House has engaged in "high crimes and misdemeanors" - an impeachable offense.

… snip …

The Sestak scandal symbolizes the arrogance and corruption of the Obama White House. The Chicago way has come to Washington. Mr. Obama has surrounded himself with sleazy thugs - starting with Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and political adviser David Axelrod, Chicago boys who think that politics is about securing and maintaining power. For them, the ends justify the means.

… snip …

After promising the most "transparent" administration in history, Mr. Obama is desperately seeking to stonewall the media's growing interest in the scandal. His spokesman, Robert Gibbs, assures us that the White House's lawyers have looked into the phone calls and "nothing inappropriate" happened. Mr. Gibbs wants us to take their word for it. That is not only arrogant, it is a cover-up. If nothing inappropriate took place, then the White House should fully disclose the details of the conversations.

The central question is: Who in the Obama White House approached Mr. Sestak? Moreover, it is almost impossible for a proposal of such magnitude - especially that of a Cabinet-level position like Navy secretary - to be offered without the knowledge and consent of the president. What did Mr. Obama know and when did he know it?

… snip ...

The Sestak scandal is Mr. Obama's Watergate - a political cancer that will slowly devour his presidency. It will first consume the president's men, as they desperately seek to contain the damage. Many may fall on their swords. But this cancer threatens to spread all the way to the top, claiming Mr. Obama as its ultimate progenitor and victim.
Click to expand...
 
Ihope you realize that you sound like a BP executive ratting out his neighbor for spilling motor oil on his driveway next ot a storm drain.
 
So, in BAC world Federal appointments can only be used to punish somebody because anybody who ever did anything to get the job could be construed as having bribed their way in?
 
Presumably the two jobs are mutually exclusive, right? So by definition if they want to offer it to him they would need him to not run for Senate. Am I missing something? Are they not allowed to offer someone a job if it would require them to not take another?

Also, I'm not denying there may be a deliberate "We want you to not run, how about this job instead?" aspect, but... I don't know, that just seems like a normal thing for an organization to do.
 
Anybody believe this explanation?

President Obama’s chief of staff used former President Bill Clinton as an intermediary to see if Representative Joe Sestak would drop out of Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate primary if given a prominent, but unpaid, advisory position, the White House said on Friday.
Click to expand...

(Bolding added for emphasis)

Seriously?
 
Brainster said:
Anybody believe this explanation?



(Bolding added for emphasis)

Seriously?
Click to expand...

Sure. They wanted Sestak in the House or in some other position. You don't just throw a man like him under the bus to achieve some other highly desireable end.

Having committed to helping Specter, Obama could not allow himself to turn around and support Sestak. Nobody would ever trust him again.

To apply the Hatch Act to this situation is absurd.

That the rightwhacker pundits like Beck and the fat deaf eunuch are calling it the equal of Wartergate or outing Valerie Plame is just symptomatic of a widespread mental abheration.
 
Brainster said:
Anybody believe this explanation?
Click to expand...

Not for one moment. You'd have to be an utter FOOL to believe that ANYONE in Obama's administration would have thought Sestak would give up a Senate seat for an UNPAID position. And why is Sestak's story suddenly changing? Because he previously described this as an important position and never once mentioned that it would be unpaid. Why did the Whitehouse contact Sestak's brother? Why did it take the Whitehouse nearly half a year to come out with this explanation? Why didn't Obama simply give that explanation the other day when he was asked at the press conference (because surely as much as this has been in the news over the past 6 months, Obama knew this)? Why didn't Clinton come forward and clear the air?

Using a CREEP, who literally lied to everyone that could be lied to (and lied under oath), and who held the record for corrupt administrations before Obama came along (indeed, the Obama administration actually tried to use the Clinton years corruption to attack Hillary during the primary), to explain the Sestak scandal away in this patently ridiculous manner is nothing short of desperation. But then, since democrats control the leftist mainstream media and both Houses of Congress, have a constituency well known for cluelessness, and republicans allowed them to get away with all the crimes committed during the Clinton administration so that the average American just thinks the Clinton scandals were about sex with an intern, Obama and company might just get away with this.

But perhaps republicans finally have the guts to force an inquiry and put the whole lot of those involved under oath. Do that and this latest attempt to spin this with more lies and obstruction may start to unravel. Because history proves liars often have trouble keeping all the lies they've told straight. And maybe there are still one or two partially uncorrupted people in the media who will ask the questions that should be asked. And maybe one or two still partially uncorrupted democrats. Maybe with Obama's popularity so low and still on the wane, one or two might finally see the writing on the wall and decide to jump ship to save America from a future filled with Chicago Style politics. We can hope for change. :mad:
 
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-f...ak-still-hasnt-denied-he-was-offered-navy-job

Has it dawned on the MSM that despite the denial by Pres. Obama's lawyer today that Joe Sestak was offered the Secretary of the Navy post, Sestak himself has still not said he wasn't offered the gig?* If there was any way under heaven that the White House could have strong-armed Sestak into flatly stating today that no one ever offered him the Navy job, it would have happened. It didn't.

Instead, all Sestak says is that Pres. Clinton offered him some measly advisory board position, which he rejected.* And indeed, Sestak tells a reporter that Clinton told him that "Rahm Emanuel" had mentioned the possibility of an advisory board position.* So we know Emanuel was in the mix. Sestak is quoted as saying that he only had "one phone call" with Pres. Clinton.* But he never said he didn't subsequently hear from Emanuel or some other senior Obama aide.

Sestak's statement in no way excludes the possibility that Emanuel or someone else in the White House subsequently sweetened the deal with the Secretary of the Navy job offer.
Click to expand...

As we've all learned, especially when Clinton is involved in anything, you have to VERY CAREFULLY parse everything that's said AND NOT SAID. It could be that the Obama administration is telling the truth … but only part of the truth.

And then we have Clinton refusing to comment on Sestak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DmoCY2Wv6g&feature=player_embedded

Perhaps he knows how much trouble one can get into when one actually makes a false statement on the record. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom