• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama Administration Bribery?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ction-of-justice-in-sestak-case-95138719.html

All the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee have joined Rep. Darrell Issa, ranking GOP member of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, in writing a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller over the Joe Sestak affair. The lawmakers urge Mueller to investigate “collusion” and possible obstruction of justice involving the White House, former President Bill Clinton, and Sestak’s brother, who was consulted during the drafting of the new White House report.

“Not surprisingly, the White House’s own report clears White House officials and former President Bill Clinton of wrongdoing,” the lawmakers write. “But assurances by the Obama White House that no laws were broken are like the Nixon White House promising it did nothing illegal in Watergate. Clearly an independent investigation is necessary to determine once and for all what really happened.”
Click to expand...
 
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/535873/201005281915/Clinton-Cutout.aspx

Alibis: The White House's official explanation for Sestak-gate is one for the books: We employed Bill Clinton as courier to present an offer of no value. Since when does Special Delivery bring empty packages?

… snip ...

This alibi boils down to: "We didn't try to bribe Sestak; we got Bill Clinton to try to bribe him for us. But what we were offering wasn't worth anything. So it couldn't be a bribe."

The memo makes a great point of noting that "the advisory positions discussed ... would have been uncompensated" — as if that puts the issue to rest.

It doesn't, by any stretch. The White House may be betting that neither Clinton nor Emanuel was offering "any money or thing of value," as bribery is described in the law. But an "uncompensated" seat on a commission is still a "thing of value."

The value is in the prestige, which could have helped Sestak raise campaign funds, win reelection to his House seat, rise in the ranks of the House leadership or to an eventual appointment in the executive branch, or result in a lucrative job offer in the private sector.

Moreover, the law prohibits a government official from "interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of ... Member of the Senate ... ."
Click to expand...

As one internet poster observed … "Nothing that involves the Clintons, Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and Bauer (Obama's hide-my-records lawyer) could possible be clean."
 
Didn't Obama promise something like he would run an open government that was above backroom deals?
 
Mumbles said:
Obama already had a Secretary of the Navy when this supposed offer took place. Guy's name is Ray Mabus, and he was sworn in last June. So I don't see how anyone would be able to credibly offer Sestak the job.

So...we're back to the unpaid board position. Which, of as you've noticed, is a pretty ridiculous attempt at bribery.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Since offering Sestak an unpaid position (unlike Reagan, who offered a paid position, but I digress) cannot possibly be called a "bribe", the only conclusion one can draw is that this is a lie, and Sestak was actaully offered something else. You just need the right frame of mind. Start with the conclusion that a crime was committed and work your way backward from there.
 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ligible-for-job-clinton-offered-95167459.html

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.

… snip ...

A spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, who is pursuing the Sestak matter in his role as ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sends the following reaction:

Are we to believe that Rahm Emanuel, a former Member of Congress himself, dispatched President Clinton to maneuver Admiral Sestak out of the Senate Primary by dispatching him with an unpaid appointment that Congressman Sestak couldn’t even accept if he wanted to? What’s more likely, that two of the most politically sophisticated people in American political history didn’t do their due diligence or that the narrative told by the White House is a not-so-brilliant work of fiction?
Click to expand...

In addition, a spokesman for Rep. Lamar Smith, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, who on Friday asked FBI director Robert Mueller to investigate the Sestak matter, says:

This is just another strike against the Administration’s story. Why bring in a big gun, like former President Clinton, to offer a meager job to Sestak that he wasn’t even eligible to accept? Either the administration is completely incompetent or there is a cover up. That’s why I’ve called for the FBI to get involved. We’re clearly not going to get a straight story from Sestak or the White House without an official investigation.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Sestak claims he had one, single solitary very short conversation with Bill Clinton on the phone. He even went so far as to say he cut Clinton off when he started to make the offer. But Bob Bauer's statement says that:

Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board
Click to expand...

The word "efforts clearly implies more than one short contact occurred. Someone is clearly lying. Probably all of those involved are, now. So again, we must ask why did the Obama administration contact Sestak's brother? What was his involvement in this matter? And what "efforts" occurred in June AND July? And why won't Clinton or any of his spokepersons speak about his supposed contact with Sestak to the press? And why would the Obama administration choose a man who Obama himself had accused of corruption during the primary campaign to be the go between? Why would the administration think an unpaid position (that it turns out Sestak wasn't even eligible to hold) would tempt him? And why has it taken the administration 6 months to reveal such a simple story? What we are witnessing here folks is a blatent coverup and witness tampering. Obama is going down the same road Nixon went. There needs to be a special prosecuter appointed so we find out the real truth.
 
One more thing this story concocted by the Obama administration to explain away Sestak-Gate shows is that for all the talk of bringing change, ethics, truthfulness and transparency to Washington, Obama's administration is engaging in the same sort of backroom illegalities, lying and coverups that got the Clinton administration in trouble ... and relying on the Clintons to do it. November can't come soon enough.
 
http://www.usatrends.info/linda-r-monk-j-d-rahm-is-done-its-a-crime-stupid/1226

Linda R. Monk, J.D.: Rahm Is Done: It’s a Crime, Stupid!

Rule Number One: When reporting a political story that may involve criminal conduct, read the relevant law first.

Leading media outlets have stated flat-out that there was nothing illegal about White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel asking former president Bill Clinton to offer Rep. Joe Sestak a position on a federal commission if he stayed in the House, rather than challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary. Politics as usual, they say. … snip ...

The media consensus is that the White House’s only “crime” was (surprise, surprise) stalling reporters about their questions in the first place. … snip … Said WaPo: “The unnecessary coverup, it turns out, is always worse than the non-crime.”

But it’s obvious that none of these folks have read the specific law involved. … snip … It’s about electioneering, not federal bribery per se. But it’s a felony, and it still counts:

18 U.S.C. § 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.
Click to expand...

Specter himself brought this law into play when during the primary Sestak raised the issue of the White House offering him a job. So it can’t all be blamed on the Republicans. Here’s what Specter told Andrea Mitchell in March:

“There is a specific federal statute, which makes it a bribe to make an offer for a public office. When I was district attorney, if somebody came and told me that, I would say, well, name names. Name dates. Name places. That’s a very serious charge. It’s a big black smear without specification. I’m telling you there is a federal crime, punishable by jail. Anybody who wants to say that ought to back it up.”
Click to expand...

So there’s the current Democratic (see Republican) senator from Pennsylvania stating on the record that such action is a crime. … snip …

Yet the memo released by the White House counsel on May 28 to defend Emanuel never addresses this specific law, although it is clearly the statute in question. Instead, the counsel’s office raises defenses that are obviously not relevant to the language of the statute, namely that the position offered Sestak was not paid. The electioneering law is very broadly written, prohibiting “any” benefit, paid or unpaid. The counsel’s memo also repeatedly refers to “discussions” between Clinton and Sestak, with the implied defense that a “discussion” is not the same thing as a “promise.” That’s where I think the legal horse is buried, and any investigation would focus. However, the law also says that the promise can be made “directly or indirectly.” This means, to me, that it can be implied as well as overt, and that it can be made through third parties. That means Emanuel would be as guilty as Clinton for the violation.
Click to expand...
 
http://townhall.com/columnists/Kevi...ite_house_crime_isnt_the_only_issue?page=full

The narrative on the White House's influence on the Democratic Senate Primary Race in Pennsylvania for 2010, has had a hard time getting squared. For a minimum of ten weeks Mr. Sestak ran his primary campaign on the notion that he was on the outs with the White House. He was independent. He was a man that Pennsylvanians could "trust" because he was "willing to stand up even to the President."

… snip ...

As the issue continued to be pondered in the media the questions flourished. As the White House attempted to brush under the rug, any need for an independent look into the matter, Americans began to perk up their ears on what the potential conflict might be. And as the White House promised an explanation, the same day they were lunching with President Clinton, who less than 24 hours later would be implicated in the controversy, something truly began to stink.

… snip …

Like so many careless things this President and his team have done politically, it seems the slop-job on cleaning up after the Sestak mess is getting messier than the oil spill in the gulf, and for good reasons. The story Joe Sestak told for ten weeks on the campaign trail, is very different from, the most recent report released by the White House on Friday. Pulling Bill Clinton in, one of the most well documented liars in elective political history, to be the fall guy is an easy way out. But not an explanation that seems all that credible.

As it has been examined in the past 48 hours or so even more questions begin to now emerge.

Why does the White House Memo refer to discussions--plural--if the story is that President Clinton had only one contact with Sestak?

Why doesn't the White House Memo clearly state that no job was in fact offered quid pro quo? Does not even the leaving of this large loophole in the middle of their own explanation allow them the legal room to maneuver even more if the public pressure becomes hotter rather than cooling off?

And most damning of all, if the explanation was as simple as a call from Bubba to Pennsylvania Joe, why couldn't Robert Gates have answered that question two months ago when he was asked daily for a period of weeks from the press as to the specifics of what had happened?

… snip …

The fact that Rahm Emmanuel and Bill Clinton are also attached to this story only belie the likelihood of monkey business, not the assurance of its absence. After all it was these two characters that took great delight fifteen years ago to put the legal system through tortured distortions of things like the word "is."
Click to expand...
 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...t-get-its-Sestak-story-straight-95277519.html

White House can't get its Sestak story straight

June 1, 2010

... snip ...

The reality is that nobody outside the White House gang and its congressional confederates is laughing about this one. It is simply illegal to offer a job to anybody in return for doing something designed to influence a congressional election, so the White House story fails both the legal and the giggle test. In the first place, nobody can seriously believe that a wizened con man like Bill Clinton would agree to offer such rotten bait to a deep-water fish like Sestak, a former three-star admiral. When the job offer was originally made to Sestak in February, it was done because he clearly represented a serious threat to Specter's bid for the Pennsylvania Democratic senatorial primary less than a year after turncoat Arlen bolted the Republican Party. It is ludicrous to believe that the prospect of a presidential appointment to an unpaid federal advisory panel of little stature and less consequence would persuade Sestak to give up his dream of moving up from the House to the Senate. Clinton must have known this beforehand.

Second, White House counsel Bob Bauer apparently was not consulted about this hastily stitched together cover-up because otherwise the participants in the Oval Office would likely have been told a key fact: As a sitting member of Congress, Sestak was barred from serving on such a federal panel and thus would have been required not only to give up his Specter challenge but also his House seat in order to agree to the White House offer. Whatever else he may be, Sestak is not stupid and would not have agreed to such a bargain.

Third, when are Washington's business-as-usual politicians going to learn that the cover-up is always worse than the original crime? As California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking minority member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said, "Has there been stalling? Yes. Is there a possibility that what we're being told now is not true because it's not so plausible? Yes. Should there be independent investigation so we can move on? Yes."
Click to expand...
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37475801/ns/politics-decision_2010/

WASHINGTON - Administration officials dangled the possibility of a job for former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff last year in hopes he would forgo a challenge to Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, administration officials said Wednesday, just days after the White House admitted orchestrating a similar job offer in the Pennsylvania Senate race.
Click to expand...

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/...o-dem-was-offered-job-to-drop-out-of-primary/

The news here isn’t that Andrew Romanoff was offered a job to help clear the way for Michael Bennet in the Senate primary; the Denver Post reported that allllll the way back in September of last year, citing multiple sources in the state Democratic leadership. The news is that the White House denied it at the time and that unnamed “administration officials” are formally un-denying it now. From last September:

Jim Messina, President Barack Obama’s deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop, suggested a place for Romanoff might be found in the administration and offered specific suggestions, according to several sources who described the communication to The Denver Post.

Romanoff turned down the overture, which included mention of a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency, sources said…

The White House said that no job was ever offered to Romanoff and that it would be wrong to suggest administration officials tried to buy him out of the contest.

“Mr. Romanoff was never offered a position within the administration,” said White House spokesman Adam Abrams.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_15205856

Clear the air on Romanoff deal

Coloradans deserve to know the details about any job offer made to the Senate candidate in exchange for not running.

President Obama's White House apparently isn't that committed to dispensing with the business-as-usual kind of politics he campaigned against.

Senate primary races in Pennsylvania and Colorado instead have revealed an Obama political machine that engages in favoritism and behind-the-scenes wrangling and deal-making that seem decidedly old-school. The two contests, in which someone from the administration allegedly offered a candidate some type of job to drop out of their race, have raised key questions that remain to be answered, especially in Colorado's Senate race.

The White House — and Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff — should speak up.
Click to expand...

So it turns out that Adam Abrams lied about the Romanoff matter.

And we, the American taxpayers, pay him $65,000 a year plus benefits … to lie.

Wonder if he had any role in the Sestak memo? Hmmmmm?

But move on, folks. Nothing to see here. It's just ChicagoObama-style politics as usual. :mad:
 
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/66942

Washington (CNSNews.com) – White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Tuesday would not say if there were multiple conversations with Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) about serving on a presidential advisory board in exchange for Sestak dropping out of the Democratic Senate primary race in Pennsylvania.

Gibbs also declined to say exactly which advisory board the White House had in mind for Sestak.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...bbs-raises-the-sestak-stonewall-95395144.html

The White House’s self-exonerating report on the Joe Sestak affair has given spokesman Robert Gibbs a new way not to answer questions. Now, when asked about the offer of a federal position to Sestak in return for Sestak’s agreement not to challenge Sen. Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, Gibbs simply refers reporters to the White House report. When reporters respond that the questions are not answered by the report, Gibbs freely acknowledges that — and then refers them to the report again. And so on.
Click to expand...


Can you spell C…O…V…E…R…U…P?

Or should we label it Obama-style transparency? :rolleyes:
 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ested-three-jobs-produces-email-evidence.html

Romanoff confirms -- White House suggested three jobs, produces email evidence

06/02/10

Earlier today, the White House admitted that they had offered Andrew Romanoff a job to get out of the Colorado senate primary. Now Romanoff is confirming the story, saying the White House offered him three different jobs. He has even released the email from the White House with the job descriptions.
Click to expand...

Well, well, well …

When is the special prosecutor going to be appointed, folks?

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom