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.
Pennsylvania Senate candidate Joe Sestak appears to have a new controversy dogging him. He couldn't shake Jobsgate and even now, it's likely only dormant. Now his connection to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is not going away either. A pro-Israel group called the Emergency Committee for Israel is upping the ante on Sestak with a new ad.
CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, has ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that wants to take down western civilization from within. Does that make Sestak a domestic enemy? If our leaders would have identified an actual enemy after 9/11, perhaps he would be.
In addition to the jobs-gate scandal that has been dogging Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak (D) in his race for Senate against Pat Toomey, there may be another one brewing for Sestak. How do ties to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) sound? He is losing Jewish voters as a direct result.
Sestak, whose Senate bid is backed by activists with the far-left grass-roots group MoveOn.org, had likewise expected heavy Jewish electoral and financial support until the controversy over his ties to CAIR began heating up in recent days.
A large advertisement in this week's edition of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent reminded voters that in 2007 Sestak served as the keynote speaker at a local fundraising dinner for CAIR.
While there is no excuse for politicians not to know what CAIR's true intentions are, in 2007 public awareness of those intentions was nowhere near where it is in 2010. Consequently, these revelations about Sestak are unquestionably going to do more damage to him than they would in 2007. Regardless, it was public knowledge by 2007 that CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial in which the defendants were found guilty of several counts related to terrorism. Sestak would have been the keynote speaker at the CAIR event during the same year that case went to trial.
It's curious that Specter didn't seize on this during his race with Sestak. It could have been a repeat of what worked for him in 1992, when his opponent was shown to be anti-Israel; that revelation carried Specter to victory. The question I have is why didn't he capitalize on Sestak's ties to CAIR?
Curiously, as WND points out, Sestak was approached by members of the Jewish community prior to speaking at the CAIR event and warned not to attend.
At a meeting with Sestak at the Havertown Jewish Community Center in 2007, members of the local Jewish community pleaded with Sestak to withdraw from the CAIR event, but he declined.
Even recently, Sestak lined up with those who had a problem with how Israel handled the flotilla endorsed by Turkey's IHH and the Free Gaza Movement.
The anti-Sestak ad also points out the lawmaker refused to join a pro-Israel letter, signed by 329 members of Congress last year, urging President Obama to work closely with Israel to advance peace. Sestak also declined to sign another pro-Israel congressional letter, in March, that affirmed the U.S. and Israel are "close allies."
Sestak did, however, sign a January letter lambasting Israel for using "collective punishment" against Palestinian residents of Gaza. The letter sought to put pressure on Israel to ease up on its blockade of the Hamas regime.
Until America admits the truth about the Muslim Brotherhood and all of the groups affiliated with it - among them is CAIR - we will continue to lose the battle.
Click HERE to see the ad Jews For Sarah placed in the Philiadelphia Jewish Exponent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Obama is quickly finding himself in the eye of a perfect storm. The Joe Sestak stonewall is beginning to crumble; the Blagojevich trial starts tomorrow; now the Denver Post has broken its relative silence since September of 2009, on the other alleged White House job offer - this one to Senate candidate and Colorado state house speaker, Andrew Romanoff. This storm doesn't even involve the oil disaster.
The Denver Post last September quoted unnamed sources that said Obama's deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina, contacted former state House Speaker Romanoff, who hadn't yet announced his candidacy, with specific suggestions for Washington jobs in exchange for his staying out of the race against appointed Sen. Michael Bennet.
The White House denied any such offer, but sources told The Post's Michael Riley: "Romanoff turned down the overture, which included mention of a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency."
Obama endorsed Bennet the day after Romanoff formally announced he was in the race.
The piece goes on to reference the subject matter of one of its own writers - Mike Littwin, a columnist with a distinct leftwing bent. Former U.S. Congressman from Colorado Bob Beauprez, who is doing interviews on these scandals, forwarded me Littwin's column and amazingly, Littwin appears to be getting quite frustrated with Romanoff, not because he thinks quid pro quo job offers are wrong but because hiding the details surrounding them is. Here is Littwin relaying an exchange he had with Romanoff's spokesman:
The question comes up because The Post's Michael Riley wrote a piece last September in which it was suggested that Jim Messina, the White House deputy chief of staff, did offer up job suggestions to Romanoff for just that purpose.
But Romanoff won't answer the question. And it's worse than that. According to Romanoff spokesman Roy Teicher, not only does Romanoff refuse to answer the question, he won't even say why he refuses to answer the question.
Let me give you a dramatic re-enactment of select parts of my conversation with Teicher:
Me: This Sestak/Romanoff thing keeps getting bigger. I'm wondering why you guys won't comment.
Teicher: That's been Andrew's position from the start.
Me: I get that. But why not?
Teicher: We're not going to comment.
Me: You have a campaign that's supposed to be based on transparency. Is this transparency?
Teicher: We're not going to analyze why we're not commenting. It's just a "no comment."
Me: So, you won't comment on why you're not commenting?
Teicher: You can come at this as many ways as you like, but we're not going to comment.
Be sure to read Littwin's entire column as well as Riley's article from September of last year.
Rod Blagojevich's attempt to get Barack Obama to testify at his corruption trial failed last month when the judge denied the motion for subpoena. Nonetheless, with scandals involving the White House allegedly offering positions / jobs to Rep. Joe Sestak in exchange for dropping out of his primary race with Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Andrew Romanoff for dropping out of his race with incumbent Michael Bennet; the trial is likely to get additional play.
Obama may not be testifying but it's looking like the testimony of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a very distinct possibility. Emanuel has his fingerprints on both the Sestak and Romanoff scandals. The Blagojevich trial may just be the trifecta. Emanuel was identified by last week's White House memo as the person who dispatched Clinton to approach Sestak and his Deputy Chief of Staff, Jim Messina was named by the Denver Post last September as the person who approached Romanoff.
Ukraine's KYIV Post is reporting on the Blago trial:
Judge James Zagel of the U.S. District Court ruled out a defense request to have Obama testify. But among those who may take the stand are senior White House staffers Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, U.S. Senator Richard Durbin, and U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.
"Given the former Governor's previous antics regarding this case, it's no surprise he is casting a wide net -- apparently from the President down to dogcatcher," a statement from Durbin's office said after the Senate Democrat was served.
This article also provides another angle of interest - Blago plans to testify and his attorney admits to having little to no control over him. Blago is scheduled to testify in his own defense. That alone would make for a great spectacle.
His attorney told an interviewer that he had neither the capability nor the intention of shutting Blagojevich up.
"He's a celebrity idiot, but he is a celebrity," Sam Adam Jr. told Chicago Magazine of plans to let his client testify.
Quieting Blagojevich would never work, he added.
"I can't. But you're going to see when he testifies. He's truly funny -- totally self-absorbed but truly funny," Adams said. "He's also one of the most insecure people I've ever met. It's such a strange dynamic."
Back in April, due to a glitch, the redacted portions of Blago's motion to subpoena Obama were revealed. Click HERE to read. The unredacted portions, read in the context of the two other scandals all but serves to create even closer parallels between Obama, Blago, Sestak, and Romanoff.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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?
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Would someone PLEASE put Darrell Issa in touch with Pat Toomey? Issa, the ranking Republican member of the House Oversight Committee is going for the jugular on Jobsgate. The neck that jugular is rapidly pulsating in is a hybrid of political careers involving that of Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and several people in the Obama administration. Sestak is now in a race with Pat Toomey (R) for the seat currently held by Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. Issa's office has produced a BLISTERING ad about this scandal that could and should catch fire.
This reaches all the way up to the top levels of the White House and it is a scandal that is easily understood. Sestak admitted in February that he was offered a job by the White House in July to drop out of his primary race with Arlen Specter. That is a felony and so is Sestak's refusal to disclose.
Stonewalling by this White House is nothing new. In fact, it's SOP. The unknown variable here is Sestak's opponent, Republican Pat Toomey. He has a national stage and can blow this scandal WIDE OPEN if he chooses to do so. It will come down to whether he's willing to put the good of the country ahead of his own aspirations for U.S. Senate - It's just that big.
The takeaway line from this ad is delivered by Sestak and looped by Issa.
"I answered it honestly." - Sestak's response to questions about his claims.
Of course, if he DID answer the question honestly, the White House is guilty of a felony.
Wow.. Just, wow. h/t to Hot Air Pundit for posting the video.
Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Jeffrey Lord has been writing about this scandal extensively at the American Spectator, starting on February 22nd.
