VIDEO: DARRELL ISSA BACKING DOWN NOW THAT HE'S IN POWER

As ranking member of the House Oversight & Government Reform committee, Darrell Issa (R) talked a very mean game when it came to the misconduct of the Obama administration. As ranking member, he had no power to launch investigations. He left the public with the impression that once he became chairman of that committee - which he will do soon after the 112th congress is sworn in - the Obama administration would face a formidable foe led by Issa.

For example, in the spring of last year, when it became very apparent that someone in the administration offered congressman Joe Sestak a job in return for dropping out of the Senate race against Arlen Specter. Issa's rhetoric was quite fiery. Again, he had no power to do anything about it. A chained dog can bark much louder if it wants; it's still not going to go anywhere. At one point, Issa even referred to the scandal as Obama's 'Watergate.'

Here, Issa is on CNN and is called on his strong rhetoric. In response, Issa is more than a little defensive and the interviewer rightfully continues to come back to the 'Watergate' comparison. We even learn courtesy of this interview that Issa is NOT going to investigate the Sestak scandal because Bush's people did it too.

This should have the Tea Party crowd spittn' mad. Issa looks disgraceful here. Perhaps he was hoping he could just 'play the game,' not realizing that he would actually be watched this time.

VIDEO: IT'S BAAAAACK - SESTAK AND JOBSGATE

And you thought this one had completely faded from the political rearview mirror. The White House was forced to respond to the mounting questions about who offered Joe Sestak a job to get out of his primary race with Arlen Specter. In an attempt to make it go away, the White House released a memo on Friday, May 28th - right before Memorial Day weekend - that was signed by Robert Bauer, husband of Mao-lover Anita Dunn.

The story appears to be back in the news. Why? Here's a hint; it involves Bill Clinton. First, the relevant paragraph from the May 28th memo signed by Bauer:

White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak. The White House Chief of Staff enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board. Congressman Sestak declined the suggested alternatives, remaining committed to his Senate candidacy.

Now fast forward to this week. WBRE Television in Wilkes-Barre, PA did a news report after hooking up with Clinton on the campaign trail. There are two very short videos involved. The first is from the actual news report in which the reporter can be heard saying that Clinton claimed he never tried to get Sestak out of the race and was never accused of it.



Interesting and potentially explosive, right? The one problem is that the claim is from the reporter and not out of Clinton's mouth.

Uh, cue up the next video. This is raw footage of a reporter asking Clinton about whether he tried to get Sestak out of the race. The audio is hard to hear - probably why it didn't make the final report - but it's obvious Clinton said, "I didn't try to get him (Sestak) out of the race" followed up with, "I wasn't even accused of that. How about people that know the facts?"



Darrell Issa's group over at the House Oversight & Reform Committee website once again is showing that it is paying VERY CLOSE attention to these developments.

BIG H/T to Hot Air

SURPRISE: ANOTHER HOUSE COMMITTEE BLOCKS FOR WHITE HOUSE

As ranking member of the House Oversight Committee on Government Reform, Issa was unsuccessful in getting Democrats in that committee to demand answers from the White House regarding offers it made to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and offers it 'dangled' to Andrew Romanoff (D-CO). Now ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) has run into the same stonewall.

Via McCall Blog:

A motion to "adversely report" the resolution of inquiry narrowly passed 15-12 by the House Judiciary Committee, asked that the U.S. Attorney General turn over all communication the Justice Department had regarding "discussions of administration appointments by White House Staff, or persons acting on behalf of White House staff, with any candidate for public office in exchange for such candidate's withdrawal from any election..."

The author of the measure, Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas, said in prepared remarks that he is "disappointed" the resolution was even necessary to get more information from the Obama administration.

As for Darrell Issa, he is chomping at the bit to become chairman of the Oversight committee because he is going to launch investigations and issue subpoenas the second he gets the job.

Darrell Issa, the California Republican who has the led the charge for information by writing numerous letters requesting more information to various officials in the Obama administration, said, as he has in the past, that at the least the offer was unethical.

"Congressman Sestak has done nothing but tell us something that should have never happened, happened," Issa said.

This scandal is in Issa's crosshairs and he is sending the message that he will be going full boar to get to the bottom of it. Now the Democrats in the Judiciary are on record as not interested in doing so.

h/t to Line of Sight

RAHM'S EXODUS FROM WHITE HOUSE EXPECTED BUT WHY?

On June 18th, POLITICO reported that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee on Government Reform is preparing to issue subpoenas to the White House regarding offers made to Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff should he become chairman of that committee after the November midterms. Issa is already planning to double his staff to aid in the effort. There is one man inside the Obama administration with indisputable connections to both offers - Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.

Two days later, the London Telegraph reported that Emanuel is expected to step down as Chief of Staff in the coming months:

Washington insiders say he will quit within six to eight months in frustration at their unwillingness to "bang heads together" to get policy pushed through.

Mr Emanuel, 50, enjoys a good working relationship with Mr Obama but they are understood to have reached an understanding that differences over style mean he will serve only half the full four-year term.

Other reasons given were that Emanuel is mulling a Chicago mayoral run and wants to spend more time with his family - the latter sounds like the reasons given by NFL head coaches who are on the chopping block in an attempt to minimize controversy.

Another pay-to-play story that could involve Emanuel is playing out in a Chicago courtroom - the Rod Blagojevich corruption trial. Running concurrent with Issa's aggressive stance relative to what he'll do with subpoena power is the Blagojevich trial, which has been heating up in recent days. The prosecution has introduced some of the audio recordings of phone conversations that took place between Rod, his brother Rob, and Rod's one time Chief of Staff, Lon Monk. One of the things that becomes readily apparent while listening to the tapes is that pay-to-play politics was a way of life in Chicago when Blago was governor.

When Blago was arrested in December of 2008, Emanuel appeared to be quite involved. News reports indicated that Emanuel had conversations with Blago about Obama's vacant senate seat. At one point, Emanuel seemed to hide behind his kids with reporters and dropped out of sight for some time.

Click HERE for some compelling audio recordings between Rod, Rob, and Lon.

Now, NBC Chicago is reporting that Rahm traded favors with Blagojevich and the Associated Press has the emails:

Emanuel agreed to sign a letter to the Chicago Tribune supporting Blagojevich in the face of a scathing editorial by the newspaper that ridiculed the governor for self-promotion. Within hours, Emanuel's own staff asked for a favor of its own: The release of a delayed $2 million grant to a school in his district.

The 2006 discussion occured with Blagojevich's top aide, Deputy Gov. Bradley Tusk, and doesn't appear to cross legal lines; Emanuel couldn't speed up the distribution of the funds. But it offers a peek at ties between two high-profile Illinois politicians — one now the president's right-hand man, the other facing years in prison if convicted of political corruption.

The very next paragraph explains what could end up being a PR hit for Emanuel and, by extension, the Obama administration...

Discussion of the exchange could come up at Blagojevich's corruption trial, currently under way in Chicago. Blagojevich, who is accused of plotting to profit by selling an appointment to Obama's former Senate seat, also tried later that year to use the school grant in an extortion attempt against Emanuel, according to federal prosecutors.

It's quite possible that Emanuel is sowing the seeds of egress from the White House so that if the Blago trial, coupled with the Sestak and Romanoff scandals, implicates him directly in the commission of crimes, he can say he was planning to leave anyway and any new accusations that arise will have nothing to do with his decision.

Emanuel's common thread with Sestak, Romanoff, and Blago....

On May 28th, courtesy of a White House legal memo, Emanuel was identified as the man inside the Obama White House who sent former President Bill Clinton to meet with Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) with an offer to drop out of the Senate primary with incumbent Arlen Specter.

In September of 2009, the Denver Post identified Deputy Chief of Staff and Emanuel right hand man, Jim Messina as the one who approached Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff (D-CO) with three job offers inside U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Messina is still Deputy Chief of Staff, which means Emanuel must have known about his dealings with Romanoff.

As the Blago trial continues to heat up - it's definitely starting to do so - look for more questions to arise about the relationship between Emanuel and Blagojevich. It could be that Emanuel's exit in several months is a trial balloon. If the Blago trial starts to shine a brighter spotlight on Emanuel, look for the latter to step down much sooner.

h/t to Blago Files

ISSA PLEDGING SUBPOENAS IF CHAIRMAN

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) is currently the ranking Republican member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and has become the face of Republican opposition to the Sestak / Abramoff stonewalling by the Obama administration. He's now making it very clear that he will use subpoena power if he becomes chairman of that commmittee as a result of the upcoming November elections.

POLTICO is reporting, with dripping liberal bias, on what Issa's plans are:

Rep. Darrell Issa, the conservative firebrand whose specialty is lobbing corruption allegations at the Obama White House, is making plans to hire dozens of subpoena-wielding investigators if Republicans win the House this fall.

The California Republican’s daily denunciations draw cheers from partisans and bookings from cable TV producers. He even bought his own earphone for live shots. But his bombastic style and attention-seeking investigations draw eye rolls from other quarters. Now, he’s making clear he won’t be so easy to shrug off if he becomes chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in 2011.

Politico is known for its liberal bent already but I found this article particularly angry. This tells me that despite the left's attempts to downplay bribes as something that should be excused as business as usual, they're getting quite concerned about Issa's pledged aggressiveness and preparedness for a big showdown.

If the House gets a majority in November's elections and Obama's numbers continue tanking, Issa very well may get some serious political momentum behind him. As Politico reports, he's preparing for such a scenario right now.

Issa has told Republican leadership that if he becomes chairman, he wants to roughly double his staff from 40 to between 70 and 80. And he is not subtle about what that means for President Barack Obama.

This story has definitely got the attention of the Democrats and you can tell by how Politico goes after Issa in this article.

Read it all.

SESTAK TWISTING HIMSELF INTO ANOTHER PRETZEL

The matter of the alleged position offered to Joe Sestak in return for dropping out of his race with Arlen Specter continues to benefit his Republican opponent, Pat Toomey, who has overtaken Sestak in the polls. Sestak's strategy appears to be one intended to distance himself from the 'establishment'.

POLITICO reports on an interview Sestak did with Tavis Smiley. He used the word, "wrong" to describe the White House's support of Specter while also attempting to place Obama above it all. If you thought there were blatant contradictions before, take a look at what Sestak told Tavis Smiley:

“There’s no more kings, there’s no more king makers in America,” Sestak said on the PBS show "Tavis Smiley." “And if the Democratic party should stand for anything when they are trying to get me out of the race, they should be for enticing people into the race. This President said it so well and I believe [that] he believes it: believe in principle and politics will follow. No. The party establishment was wrong in what it did.”

Did you catch that? He rips the Democratic "party establishment" for the attempt to get him out of the race while holding up Obama as a principled leader. Does he think people are this stupid? The offer came from Obama's Chief of Staff and was relayed by former president Bill Clinton. If it was "wrong", then Obama was wrong. Sestak doesn't draw the comparison that is so obvious, it slaps even the staunchest of Obamautomatons upside the head - I bet even Tavis Smiley cocked an eyebrow at that one. Then again, maybe not. He does believe rabid murderous Christians outnumber their Islamic counterparts.

Sestak is actually attempting to distance himself from Obama while also giving him a pass. This is beyond convoluted. As he failed to do when asked by Larry Kane if he was offered a job to drop out of the primary, he should have kept his mouth shut here as well.

via POLITICO

EX-WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY COUNSEL ON SESTAK SCANDAL

Former Deputy White House Counsel William A. Burck gets right to the heart of the problem with respect to the role of current Chief White House Counsel - and husband to Mao admirer Anita Dunn - Robert Bauer, in how the Obama administration is handling the aftermath of the Sestak and Romanoff scandals. He sees enough smoke to warrant an independent investigation, just like was done with Valerie Plame.

Via the Washington Post:

Without knowing all of the facts and particularly whether firm promises of government jobs were made, it cannot be ascertained at the moment whether dealings among Obama White House officials, former president Bill Clinton, Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak and former Colorado House speaker Andrew Romanoff broke the law. What is clear, however, is that White House Counsel Robert Bauer has engaged in an unprecedented "investigation" of the Sestak affair, culminating in the issuance of his May 28 report.

This effort was, at best, misguided. At worst, it impeded any legitimate Justice Department investigation, harmed the cause of justice and reinforced public disgust with Washington.

The White House counsel is the president's principal legal adviser, but the role is not independent of the president or the White House. Unlike the attorney general, who is the nation's top law enforcement officer, the White House counsel is not confirmed by the Senate and does not supervise career lawyers charged with impartially investigating and prosecuting possible crimes on behalf of the people of the United States. Executive privilege, which restricts public disclosure of certain communications between the president and his staff, is at its strongest for advice given to the president by his counsel.

Burck's point is extremely well taken. He then goes on to compare how the Obama administration would like to handle these allegations of wrongdoing with how the administration Burck worked for DID handle the Valerie Plame affair; the investigation was handed over to independent counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald.

Apparently not lost on Burck is the ridiculous notion that all the president's men are dismissing potentially illegal activity by saying it's done all the time; true or not, that potential reality should not excuse law breaking. Another tactic the White House seems to be using is referring people to former members of the Bush administration and DOJ who are saying what Team Obama wants people to hear.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey under George W. Bush initially called for an independent investigation but then backtracked. His "re-calibrated" words have been incorporated into this administration's talking points. Another individual whose stance the Obama administration is sure to point to is former George W. Bush ethics lawyer, Richard Painter. While Painter concedes the allegations indicate the White House has done some seedy things with respect to job offers to Sestak and Romanoff, he sees no illegality. The stances of Mukasey and Painter simply don't pass the smell test, which is likely why Team Obama embraces them.

Burck, on the other hand, is not likely to be cited by this administration as a Republican who sees nothing wrong or no reason to investigate.

Read it all.

GIBBS AND SESTAK RENDER WHITE HOUSE MEMO WORTHLESS

On May 28th, a memo signed by White House Counsel Robert Bauer was released to the press and it said that the position offered to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) was not a paying one. It was one of several options discussed and included a position on a White House Advisory Board. After the release of the memo, Sestak spoke to the press and possibly volunteered too much information - again. When asked by one reporter what the position was, Sestak paused and then said - twice - that he believed it was on the Intelligence Board.

As Byron York discovered, which was reported HERE, that story didn't square with the memo. If, as the memo states, the White House wanted Sestak to remain a congressman, he would have been ineligible for a position on the Intelligence advisory Board.

Now, the Daily Caller is reporting that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is on record as saying the position offered to Sestak was NOT on the Intelligence Board. However, Gibbs would not say what position was offered:

The spot offered to Sestak, Gibbs said to reporters at the White House, “didn’t constitute a lot of what you’re hearing.”

But Gibbs refused to clarify what Sestak, who won the May 18 primary and is now the Democratic nominee for Senate, was offered.

Sestak indicated Friday he was offered a spot on the PIAB by former President Bill Clinton, who was acting on behalf of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

“I heard presidential board and I think it was Intel,” Sestak said to reporters, describing his conversation with Clinton.

It would seem we're right back where we were before this memo came out. Sestak's story doesn't square with what the White House is saying.

Last time, it came down to either Sestak was lying or the White House committed a crime. Now we seem to be looking at a scenario in which either Sestak is lying or the White House is lying.

Stay Tuned.

VIDEO: DARRELL ISSA VS. ED RENDELL ON JOBSGATE

Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform squared off against Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell (D) on Fox News Sunday over the position offered to Rep. Joe Sestak (D) to drop out of his primary race with Arlen Specter. Rendell actually admitting that he'd done the same thing may get the most play but I thought what he said at the end of this exchange was the most absurd.

Rendell actually said, "I think Barack Obama has brought a new level of ethical standards to Washington. Has he changed some basic, hard-knuckle politics? No. You need hard-knuckle politics to succeed."

Pond scum.

Be sure to watch the entire exchange because Issa lands some heavy blows. I think Issa deserves entry into the same category as Chris Christie and Jan Brewer as politicians who are actually willing to lead.

Via Fox News:

AUDIO: SESTAK LEADING A CIRCULAR FIRING SQUAD?

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?

SESTAK: I'll let others decide that...

To hear the entire interview, click below.

Joe Sestak inverview

wche's Podcast

h/t to Free Republic

POSITION ALLEGEDLY OFFERED SESTAK NOT A LEGAL OPTION

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".



Be sure to read York's ARTICLE

VIDEO: CLINTON AVOIDS REPORTER ASKING ABOUT SESTAK

The White House memo signed by the husband of Mao fan Anita Dunn - Robert Bauer - identified Bill Clinton as the person who approached Joe Sestak. Inconsistent with Sestak's repeated claims that he was offered a high ranking job in the Obama administration to drop out of the primary race, the memo claims he was offered a non-paying Board position he could serve on while remaining a congressman.

HERE is the link to the White House memo.

As was the case in Watergate, the cover-up was much worse than the act itself. Enter Bill Clinton. If there is nothing to this and no illegal activity took place, why dodge questions? Here, Clinton not only dodges them but he completely ignores them. Wouldn't it be something if Bill Clinton ends up finishing off his own legacy AFTER he left office?

Something tells me this scandal is just beginning. Via Real Clear Politics:

DOJ SUED OVER BLACK PANTHER CASE STONEWALL

Eric Holder's Department of Justice has found itself on the receiving end of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit over its decision not to prosecute the now infamous - and lingering - Black Panther case. Most know the story about the inexplicable decision by the Justice Department to drop the case despite having a clear cut example of voter intimidation caught on video and the defendants - all Black Panthers - not responding to the complaint. U.S. Attorneys had won a default judgment and were ordered to stand down.

Due to the egregiously blatant nature of that decision, what happened with the FOIA requests by Judicial Watch is not all that surprising.

Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request on May 29, 2009. The Justice Department acknowledged receiving the request on June 18, 2009, but then referred the request to the Office of Information Policy (OIP) and the Civil Rights Division. On January 15, 2010, the OIP notified Judicial Watch that it would be responding to the request on behalf of the Offices of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, Public Affairs, Legislative Affairs, Legal Policy, and Intergovernmental and Public Liaison.

On January 15, the OIP also indicated that the Office of the Associate Attorney General found 135 pages of records responsive to Judicial Watch’s request, but that all records would be withheld in full. On January 26, the OIP advised Judicial Watch that the Office of Public Affairs and Office of Legal Policy completed their searches and found no responsive documents. On February 10, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division indicated that after an extensive search it had located “numerous responsive records” but determined that “access to the majority of the records” should be denied. On March 26, the OIP indicated that the Office of Legislative Affairs and the Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison completed searches and found no documents.

Welcome to the Eric Holder led Justice Department. First, 135 pages found to be responsive but the decision was made to withhold them. Then, there were none responsive at all. That was followed by the location of "numerous" documents that were responsive but that most of them should be held. Then, lastly, the decision was made that none were responsive. That old saying, "Tell the truth because it's the easiest thing to remember" comes to mind.

This lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch coupled with an investigation into the Black Panther case by the U.S. Commission on Civil RIghts has definitely brought to bear, significant pressure on the DOJ. One attorney there has already resigned because he was not cooperating with the Commission's probe or FOIA requests. The attorney was obviously being directed by someone not to cooperate but was incurring great personal expense because the DOJ was not declaring Executive Privilege for withholding the documents so the attorney had no reason to withhold them - that is, no overt reason. It would seem to indicate that the practice of throwing people under the bus is not reserved solely for the president. More on the resigning attorney HERE.

Michelle Malkin has a great take on all this in the context of what's going on with Jobsgate - the scandal involving the White House and Joe Sestak. The stonewalling there is not at all dissimilar from that witnessed in the Black Panther case. Unlike the Sestak case however, public outrage at the stonewalling hasn't risen to the level requiring Obama to respond; Obama announced at yesterday's news conference that an official statement on Sestak would be released "shortly".

As this Black Panther case continues to take a similar path to Jobsgate - a slowly percolating scandal that could explode - look for it to one day get a similar level of attention. The probes by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights along with Judicial Watch's lawsuit, along with the ongoing repercussions like the resignations of attorneys, could blow this open as well.

Read the complaint HERE.

h/t to Michelle Malkin

VIDEO: TOOMEY TALKS JOBSGATE ON MORNING JOE

Democrats control both Houses of congress and there is no way Eric Holder is going to launch an investigation. Joe Sestak's opponent, Pat Toomey has the ability to be a lightning rod in this scandal. No one person in the media can control it. The scandal will either have a life of its own or it won't. Toomey, on the other hand, has the power to make hay over it.

The only way this scandal continues becoming a big deal is if public opinion drives it. Right now, the media is driving public opinion by continuing to cover it so Toomey's input can remain minimal. If the story dies down in the media, Toomey will have to drive it again.

So far, he is chiming in on the scandal and is calmly stating that something stinks here. That's exactly what he should be doing and he does so again on MSNBC'S Morning Joe.

An excellent point made by Toomey in this exchange is his Senate run in 2004 and the Republican establishment wanting him to drop out of that race because it had thrown its support behind Arlen Specter. Toomey says that he was never offered a job to drop out.

h/t to Hot Air

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

VIDEO: TIME MAGAZINE EDITOR WILLFULLY IGNORANT ON JOBSGATE

Time Magazine's Rick Stengel appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe and came across as being nearly completely ignorant of the scandal involving Rep. Joe Sestak and the Obama administration. Mika Brzezinski actually had to say Sestak's name several times because Stengel looked like a deer in the proverbial headlights on the story.

As for the magazine, they should change their name to, "TIME TO QUIT".



h/t to NewsBusters

VIDEO: PAT TOOMEY ON JOBSGATE

Pennsylvania Senate candidate Pat Toomey (R) appeared on Sean Hannity's television show and discussed the 'Jobsgate' scandal involving his opponent Joe Sestak and the White House. I thought Toomey did well in publicly talking about the issue and hinting that he believes there is a legitimate problem. That said, Hannity pressed him a bit on the statement released by Toomey's office, saying that he thought it should have been tougher.

As this scandal heats up, Toomey should lead the charge to blow it open. To Hannity's credit, after reading the statement from Toomey's office (below the video), he was right to push Toomey on it. At this point, I think Toomey did fine in his appearance. As long as the media continues to run with the story, he can probably sit back a little but if it shows any sign of dying down, he needs to whip out the bellows and get it going again. As I wrote HERE, this scandal is much bigger than Toomey's personal aspirations.

Via Fox


HERE is Toomey's statement referred to by Hannity in the above interview.

For Immediate Release—May 24, 2010

Contact: Nachama Soloveichik • Communications Director • 484.809.7994 • 646.528.1029
Contact: Kristin Anderson • Deputy Communications Director • 484.809.7994 • 612.280.5196
Contact: Tim Kelly • Press Secretary • 484.809.7994

Allentown, PA – U.S. Senate candidate Pat Toomey issued the following statement today about allegations that the White House offered Rep. Joe Sestak a job in exchange for exiting the U.S. Senate race:

“From day one, our campaign has been focused on the critical issues facing Pennsylvania, like jobs, the economy, and a federal government that’s on an out-of-control spending spree. That’s where our focus will remain. To that end, Congressman Joe Sestak’s support for the policies that are bankrupting our country and killing jobs is of much greater concern to me than whatever deal-making was done between him and the White House.

“Having said that, by virtue of the nonstop inquiries coming into our campaign from members of the media, we are compelled to respond to what is now being commonly referred to as ‘job-gate.’ My response is simply this: Congressman Sestak should tell the public everything he knows about the job he was offered, and who offered it. To do otherwise will only continue to raise questions and continue to be a needless distraction in this campaign. Joe and I disagree on many important issues, from health care, to bailouts, to the unprecedented debt being racked up in Washington. That’s what our campaign should be about, rather than these other matters. Joe can clear that all away by simply disclosing all the facts that he knows, and I urge him to do that.”

Hannity addressed that statement perfectly with Toomey. He lightly pressed him and then got him to publicly admit this is a big deal. Toomey did a very decent job of answering the questions but he needs to be prepared to help drive this scandal, not because it will help him defeat Sestak but because it's the right thing for him to do for his country.

Via Fox News

OUCH! AXELROD BASICALLY CALLS SESTAK A LIAR

This thing is - metaphor alert - BLOWING UP. CNN's John King, to his credit, continues to press David Axelrod about Joe Sestak's claim that he was offered a job by the White House in return for dropping out of his race with Arlen Specter. At one point, King actually refers to the charge as a "felony" and Axelrod has to deal with it.

He does so by conceding that if Sestak's charges are true, it would be very serious. That may seem innocuous but it almost eliminates a possible future course of action for the White House to take. If the claim is true, the White House will not be able to minimize it and say it's just politics. Axelrod eliminated that potential by saying it would be serious.

Another revelation given by Axelrod here appears to be the elimination of himself as the source of the job offer. If it was Axelrod, why would he put himself on the hook by saying - as he did in this exchange - that he wasn't involved in the conversations?

Sestak is on video, countless times saying that he answered "honestly" the question about being offered a job by the White House as a bribe. Axelrod tells King there is "no evidence of that". Unless I'm wrong, that's the equivalent of calling Sestak a liar.

This exchange is VERY damaging to Obama's administration.



h/t to Hot Air

VIDEO: AXELROD ASKED ABOUT SESTAK SCANDAL

While it is certainly noteworthy when anyone at MSNBC asks a member of the Obama administration about 'Jobsgate' - a scandal involving allegations that Joe Sestak was offered a bribe, this exchange between Chuck Todd and David Axelrod, while brief, is revealing.

Axelrod changed the subject quickly but it's how he did it that struck me as a possible microcosm for the tactics used by the Obama administration to co-opt the media in general. Watch as Axelrod abruptly changes the subject while mysteriously having a copy of the Washington Post on hand, featuring a story about Chuck Todd.

Axelrod proceeds to heap praise on Todd, who embarrassingly melts in front of the audience.

Shameful.

Via Hot Air Pundit

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

UPDATE: In the context of that video and the rubbing of Todd's belly by Axelrod, take a look at Todd the next morning on MSNBC'S Morning Joe. In this exchange, Chuck couldn't be any more of an apologist for the administration. Is it a coincidence that shortly after receiving fawning praise by Axelrod, he's defending the White House?

Video via NewsBusters

VIDEO: SESTAK ASKED YET AGAIN ABOUT JOBSGATE

The latest installment of Joe Sestak's continuing misprision of an alleged felony occurred on Meet the Press with David Gregory. Like several others before him, Gregory tried to get the Democratic candidate for Arlen Specter's Senate seat to come forward with the name of who from the White House offered him a job to drop out of his race with Specter and what the job was. Like CNN's Rick Sanchez, Gregory seemed nearly apoplectic - by the mainstream media's standards - over Sestak's obfuscation with questions that necessarily must have very simple answers.

The play this scandal is suddenly getting is quite interesting.

Via POLITICO:



h/t to Free Republic

IT'S TIME TO START TALKIN' TOOMEY

My latest column is posted over at the American Thinker and is about the percolating scandal involving Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and his admission in February that the White House offered him a job in return for his dropping out of the primary with Arlen Specter. Sestak's defeat of Specter presents a significant problem for both himself and the White House because if his claim - which he refuses to explain in detail - is true, it would implicate the White House in the commission of a felony.

After writing the column, I noticed that I referred to Sestak being interviewed on KDKA 1020 in Pittsburgh by Mike Pintek but didn't give any details of it. For the record, on May 19th, Pintek confronted Sestak on this issue for two minutes - after having interviewed Pat Toomey - and Sestak bungled it; big time. I will be playing those two minutes on my May 23rd show so be sure to check the radio show archives and download the podcast.

Via American Thinker:

May 23, 2010
Will Toomey Play Hardball with Sestak?
Ben Barrack

When Joe Sestak defeated Arlen Specter to secure the Democratic nomination for Senator of Pennsylvania, you could almost feel the White House cringe. Although it's too early to say that Sestak's loose lips in a February media interview with Larry Kane could sink the Obama administration's ship, his primary win almost certainly has the White House scrambling for sandbags to reinforce the stonewall.

Sestak clammed up in that interview after admitting that someone in the administration offered him a job in July to drop out of the primary -- presumably, that job was Secretary of the Navy. The problem is that the claim implicates the administration in the commission of at least one felony and Sestak could be implicating himself in the misprision of a felony as long as he remains silent about what job was offered and who offered it.

Republican candidate Pat Toomey is now running against Sestak and told KDKA radio's Mike Pintek on May 19th that he will run his campaign like he's twenty points down in what is, on paper a close race. If he means that, perhaps he should shine the spotlight on this scandal now that he is on a national stage.

On its face, a strategy that involves calling national media attention...

Click HERE to read entire column.

HERE is the U.S. Statue involved.