Republican Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer is being hit on all sides over this new immigration law. Barack Obama's Assistant Secretary of State James Posner apologized to China of all places, for the new law in Arizona; Mexican president Felipe Calderon chimed in on both the White House lawn and in front of a joint session of Congress; Democrats gave him a standing ovation. Now, we learn that Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers have a problem with SB 1070 as well.
There's not a whole lot Brewer can do about those attacks but she's decided to do something about the potential conflict of interest that may exist between her state's Attorney General - a Democrat who met with Eric Holder on Friday, May 28th. Interestingly, Brewer's state legislature gave her advance approval to use outside counsel in her defense of the new law, which is expected to be challenged by the Federal government.
The L.A. Times blog reports that Arizona AG Terry Goddard is, for all intents and purposes - being taken off the case by Brewer:
On Friday, Goddard met with the Obama administration's Atty. Gen. Eric Holder in Washington, then held a news conference just hours before Brewer's handpicked attorneys were to meet with Holder, an outspoken critic of the law.
Brewer said, "I believe the federal government should use its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the State of Arizona."
Seeing apparent collusion between the two Democrat lawyers, Brewer pulled the plug Friday night.
Now, Holder can talk to Goddard all he wants but it will likely be in vain to do so. It's a pretty sad statement when a governor has to worry about her Attorney General violating his oath for political reasons. It's an even more ominous prospect to consider that the U.S. Attorney General would be complicit in the former's doing so. There are two politicians exhibiting true executive leadership these days. One is Brewer and the other is Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey. There are 48 other Governors that should feel free to stand up any day now.
Before the official White House memo authored by White House counsel Robert Bauer was released on Friday, Joe Sestak was interviewed on WCHE 1520 Radio out of West Chester, PA. A man named Chris Freind asked him about the comments of Illinois Senator Dick Durbin earlier in the week. The response Sestak gave wasn't exactly kind to Durbin, the #2 Democrat in the Senate. Basically, Sestak accused Durbin of being part of the 'Washington establishment'.
Earlier this week, The Hill reported that Durbin was calling on Sestak to come clean about the alleged job offer:
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said the onus is on Sestak to say more about the offer he claimed to have received from the Obama administration in exchange for dropping his primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.).
"At some point, I think Congressman Sestak needs to make clear what happened," Durbin told reporters at the Capitol.
Now for Sestak's comments on Durbin. The whole interview is worth listening to but to hear the key portion, fast forward to the 6:30 mark to hear Sestak attempt to align with the voters against people like Durbin.
Here's the transcript:
FREIND: "U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, one of the highest ranking Democcrats in the Senate, has publicly said that you need to come clean....
...Clearly, someone isn't telling the whole truth.
If this was a quid pro quo arrangement, (which by your words it would seem to be), that would be against the law....so Number 1, (if that is the case) do you let the White House get away with that crime, and Number 2, could your silence be construed as obstruction, of aiding and abetting?
SESTAK: I don't really care what Dick Durbin says....he's the Establishment of Washington, D.C. I appreciate Dick Durbin. But I've already demonstrated that when the Establishment thinks it can dictate what's right for Pennsylvanians....who have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs...I'm not going to let Washington or anyone else dictate what I'm going to speak about....
I answered this question honestly. Others have to stand up for their accountability and what their role is..."
FREIND: Do you think they (the White House) committed a crime?
The memo from Robert Bauer, White House Counsel insists that Joe Sestak was not offered a paying job but an unpaid appointment to a presidential advisory Board. If the job had been a paid one, it would have been far more egregious. Is it too much of a stretch to ask whether the claim in Bauer's memo is untrue and an attempt to diminish the charge by implying that an unpaid position isn't a 'thing of value' - a phrase I'm sure the public will grow increasingly familiar with?
The claim made in this memo is that the administration didn't want Sestak to leave his congressional seat so they sweetened the pot to get him to drop out of his primary with Arlen Specter; a position he could hold while remaining a sitting congressman was then offered. Small problem. The position he is suspected of being offered isn't to be held by a government employee which, as a congressman, Sestak would continue to be.
Byron York at the Washington Examiner makes the catch and links to the page on the White House website that clarifies it. Here's what it says in the very first paragraph:
The Board consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government. Members are distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors. The Board is a nonpartisan body, independent of the Intelligence Community, free from day-to-day management or operational responsibilities, and with full access to the complete range of intelligence-related information.
Reports have been - and Sestak has since given them further credence with his subsequent statements - that the position in question was on this Intelligence Advisory Board. If this is in fact the position Sestak was offered, the White House has a new legal dilemma to deal with.
York points out that - like he did initially by admitting the White House offered him a job to drop out - Sestak may have said too much (VIDEO BELOW) when asked about the alleged position he was offered after Bauer's memo was released:
The statement from White House counsel Robert Bauer did not specifically mention the intelligence board, but speaking to reporters Friday, Sestak said of his conversation with Clinton, “At the time, I heard the words ‘presidential board,’ and that’s all I heard…I heard ‘presidential board,’ and I think it was intel.” In addition, the Times reported that “people briefed on the matter said one option was an appointment” to the intelligence board. But the White House could not legally have placed Sestak on the board.
As for why a position such as this one would be off limits to a congressman, it seems obvious on its face. It's a conflict of interest and could lead to corruption. It could short circuit the checks and balances so critical to our Constitution. Aren't we seeing an Executive Branch already sucking power right out of Congress?
One last thing here. Ever since this scandal began, Sestak has attempted to use his ill-advised admission that he was offered a job by the White House as a demonstration of his honesty and integrity. In subsequent responses about the matter, he continued to say, "I answered (the question) honestly". With that in mind, have a look at this excerpt from the statement released by Sestak after the Bauer memo came out:
He (Clinton) 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. I told President Clinton that my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any offer.
Sestak's revelation after the Bauer memo that he thinks the position offered was in "intel" may have been something he answered honestly but it may have been something - again - the White House wishes he wouldn't have said. Sestak may be proving that he's a bad liar. That's good for America but increasingly looking like it's NOT good for the Obama administration.
This entire video worth watching but fast forward to hear Sestak talk about the type of Presidential Board position he was offered; he actually does it twice. At the 9:20 mark, he says it was either "Intelligence or Defense". At the 12:40 mark, he says, "I think it was intel".
