JOBSGATE JUST KEEPS PERCOLATING......

When Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA) almost innocently stated during a television interview on February 18th that the White House offered him a job to drop out of his primary fight with incumbent Arlen Specter (D-PA), he couldn't possibly have known the can of worms he opened up.

Subsequent to this admission, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs feigned ignorance five times when asked about it. On the sixth time - March 16th - Gibbs attempted to brush off the entire controversy in two ways. One was to assert that the people he spoke to in the White House about the matter seemed to indicate that any discussions between the White House and Sestak were "not problematic". The second was to imply that whatever was said is in the past and that Sestak has indicated he just wants to focus on the primary.

The latter tactic is laughable because the only reason it's in the past is because Gibbs stonewalled for four weeks on five separate occasions. The former tactic may have him - and the White House by extension - in a bit of trouble. The CBS News website is reporting that the ranking Republican member of the House Oversight Committee, Darrell Issa (R-CA) is pressing on.

On March 10th, Issa sent a letter to White House lawyer Robert Bauer asking for details about communications between Sestak and the White House. In the letter, he pointed to statutes he said could have been violated if Sestak was offered a quid pro quo arrangement in which he would be given an administration job in exchange for leaving the race.

Issa said the move may have violated anti-bribery provisions of the federal criminal code as well as prohibitions on government officials interfering in elections and using federal jobs for a political purpose. Violation of each provision is punishable by up to one year in jail.

The White House did not respond to Issa's letter by its March 18 deadline.

Issa then sent a second letter to the White House after Gibbs' claims about conversations not being problematic. The reason? If Gibbs had conversations about a potential felony, then he may be gathering evidence in case that should be handled by a special prosecutor.

In the letter, Issa said that Gibbs' comments that he is "collecting direct evidence from witnesses" implies "that the White House is allowing its communications staff to carry out investigative tasks ordinarily conducted by legal professionals in the Counsel's office. Such slipshodness has all the makings of a cover up."

Stay tuned. This appears to be the real deal. However, there have been countless other examples since January, 2009 as well. In any case, Issa is likely to be watching Gibbs very closely. As long as the questions about Sestak's claims persist, Gibbs will likely continue to give Issa even more to work with.

Previous posts here and here.

h/t to Free Republic