Congressman: White House Job Offer to Sestak May Be an 'Impeachable' Offense

[Dos Equis]

This could get interesting.  I just hope they don't waste my money running down a rabbit trail. 

Congressman: White House Job Offer to Sestak May Be an 'Impeachable' Offense

FOXNews.com

Rep. Joe Sestak's allegation that the White House offered him a job to drop out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary race against Arlen Specter is a crime that could lead to the impeachment of President Obama, Rep. Darrell Issa said.

Rep. Darrell Issa (r) said Tuesday that Rep. Joe Sestak's (l) allegation that the White House offered him a job to coax him out of a race against Arlen Specter could be an "impeachable" offense. (AP)
Rep. Joe Sestak's allegation that the White House offered him a job to drop out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary race against Arlen Specter is a crime that could lead to the impeachment of President Obama, Rep. Darrell Issa said.

But the decision by the Pennsylvania congressman not to elaborate on a so-called deal also could become a political problem as Sestak tries for the U.S. Senate seat.

The White House reportedly is going to formally address the allegation in the next few days. In the meantime, Issa, R-Calif., is one of many inside and outside Washington who want the Democratic Senate primary candidate to explain in detail what offer the White House made.

"It's very clear that allegation is one that everyone from Arlen Spector to Dick Morris has said is in fact a crime, and could be impeachable," said Issa, who is threatening to file an ethics compliant if Sestak doesn't provide more details about the alleged job offer.

Sestak, a former vice admiral in the Navy, first alleged in February that the White House offered him a high-ranking position in the administration last summer if he would sit out the primary against Specter, who won the backing of the White House and state Democratic leaders for switching parties.

The allegation is considered one of the factors that helped him defeat Specter, who was viewed as unscrupulous in doing whatever he could to keep his seat, including changing his party to win White House support for an uphill re-election battle.

But now, Sestak has to go into the general election, where his opponent, former Republican Rep. Pat Toomey, is willing to use the topic as referendum on both Sestak's and Obama's credibility.

"Congressman Sestak should tell the public everything he knows about the job he was offered, and who offered it," Republican Senate candidate Pat Toomey said in a written statement. "To do otherwise will only continue to raise questions and continue to be a needless distraction in this campaign."

And Democratic Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, a close ally of the president, said Sestak can't continue to lay out the charge without backing it up.

"At some point, Congressman Sestak needs to make it clear what happened," he said.

Issa said this allegation is bigger than the Senate race.

"For Joe Sestak, he can dance around it and he may or may not be a senator," he said. "But for the White House, this problem's not going away. Adm. Sestak is in fact a very reliable source."

Ann Marie McAvoy, a former federal prosecutor, said the White House could have a problem on its hands depending on what the facts show.

"If they were simply offering him a job because they thought he was a qualified person for it and there was no request made that he in essence drop out of the race, it would be different," she told Fox News. "This is why there really needs to be an in depth investigation. There needs to be witness interviews and so on to figure out what happened, who said what, what were the other circumstances surrounding it."

Issa has called on the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor but Attorney General Eric Holder has said that won't be necessary.

"We assure you that the Department of Justice takes very seriously allegations of criminal conduct by public officials," Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich told Issa in a letter. "All such matters are reviewed carefully by career prosecutors and law enforcement agents, and appropriate action, if warranted, is taken."

Weich said a special prosecutor won't be needed because the Justice Department "has a long history of handling investigations of high level officials professionally and independently, without the need to appoint a special counsel."

But McAvoy said any allegation of wrongdoing shouldn't be left to the Justice Department to decide.

"Someone in the administration had this conversation which means that would be the person mostly likely who committed the crime if there is a crime," she said. "So you have the people who are representing the people who potentially committed the crime are making the determinations as to whether anything wrong happened. That's not the way it's supposed to happen."

Issa compared any potential cover-up to the Watergate scandal of the Nixon era.the White House Tuesday of a cover up similar to the Watergate scandal.

"It's not about what was done wrong. It's about the cover up," Issa told Fox News. "And right now, there's a cover up going on at the White House 10 weeks after the allegation."

 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/25/congressman-white-house-job-offer-sestak-impeachable-offense/?test=latestnews

[MCWAY]

Unless, the numbers are there next year to throw Obama out of office, it IS a waste of our money.

[240 is Back]

hahahahahahahhahahahhaa

[Soul Crusher]

Waste of time.  This is SOP for these bums. 

Go after him for Cap & Trade, the lies of ObamaCare, GS nonsense etc. 

[240 is Back]

seriously, it's so funny how so many of this new generation of senator and senate hopeful are a bunch of pompous d-bags.  Scott brown got into office taking all the tea party money and screaming "Yes, I drive a truck, Mr Obama!"  he got into office then started being Mr RINO-LIB almost immediately.  Then you have Sestak, doesn't even have the job, but is so high from his Specter win that he opens his mouth on this, blissfully unaware he was accusing the white house of a crime.

Oh brother, so funny.

[Straw Man]

LOL - "everyone from Arlen Spector to Dick Morris has said is in fact a crime"

[Dos Equis]

Sestak isn't the problem, assuming he is telling the truth.  He simply stated the facts.  If those facts amount to a crime, that's Obama's problem. 

[Colossus_500]

Sestak isn't the problem, assuming he is telling the truth.  He simply stated the facts.  If those facts amount to a crime, that's Obama's problem. 

Yep, big time.  The real question is...how high does this bribe go up the food chain in the Obama administration. 

[Soul Crusher]

This type of stuff is nothing to people like ZERO.  Its SOP.

[George Whorewell]

More tea party racists causing trouble.

We all know this story is fictional.

The correlation between rampant corruption and Obama entering the White House is a total coincidence.

I wonder who Obama's Vince Foster will be?

I'm hoping it's Twinkle Toes Emmanuel or morbidly obese cross dresser Janet Napoliatano.

[Dos Equis]

Yep, big time.  The real question is...how high does this bribe go up the food chain in the Obama administration. 

I agree.  Given Obama's pledge to have a transparent administration, I'm sure he'll be holding a press conference soon to discuss this. 

 

[Dos Equis]

What troubles me the most about this is our president once again engaging in politics as usual.  Hope and change.   


Sestak Case Casts Light On Murky Political Boundaries
By PETER BAKER
Published: May 29, 2010

 
WASHINGTON — When the White House enlisted former President Bill Clinton to see if Representative Joe Sestak would accept a presidential appointment to drop out of a Senate race, there is no question it was committing politics. But was it committing a crime?

The dispute surrounding the White House effort to nudge Mr. Sestak out of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary has once again cast a harsh light on the murky boundaries that govern American political life. When does ordinary horse-trading cross a line? When does behavior that may violate sensibilities actually violate federal law?

The law does ban promising any position to influence an election and Republican lawmakers have called for a special prosecutor or the F.B.I. to investigate whether Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, or his colleagues made an illegal quid pro quo proposal. So far, the Justice Department has rebuffed such calls and, as of a few days ago, officials said neither the department nor the Office of Special Counsel, which looks at politicking by federal employees, was investigating.

The White House and independent Democratic lawyers have scoffed at the notion that anything illegal happened and accused the Republicans of trying to criminalize politics. Even former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, appointed by President George W. Bush, said on Fox News on Friday that it was “highly questionable if there’s any crime” and that a prosecution “really is a stretch.”

Mr. Sestak himself said that he did not think it was a crime for Mr. Clinton to call him up on behalf of Mr. Emanuel to suggest an unpaid position on a presidential advisory board. “If I ever thought anything had been wrong about this, I would have reported it,” he said on Friday. He added, “I understand Washington D.C. is often about political deals.”

Indeed, the White House compiled a list of other times administrations considered or offered appointments to avert primaries or affect elections. Among the examples it found, citing news reports: Mr. Bush’s team looking for an administration position for former Representative Benjamin A. Gilman of New York in 2002 to avoid him challenging another Republican incumbent after redistricting; Mr. Clinton nominating Gov. William Weld of Massachusetts to be ambassador to Mexico in 1997, making it easier for a Democrat to win the state office; and President Ronald Reagan’s advisers dangling an ambassadorship in 1981 if Senator S. I. Hayakawa dropped out of a California Republican primary.

At the same time, it can depend on just how subtle or explicit the offers are. Political deals offered in a particularly raw way have gotten officeholders in trouble before. In 2004, the House ethics committee admonished Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, then the Republican House majority leader, for offering to support the Congressional campaign of a fellow lawmaker’s son in exchange for a critical vote on a Medicare bill. And in 2008, the authorities arrested Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois, a Democrat, accusing him of trying to sell the appointment to fill the vacated Senate seat of President Obama. Mr. Blagojevich is scheduled to go on trial on corruption charges this week.

So what about this case?

Federal law makes it a crime for anyone “who directly or indirectly promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or any other benefit” to someone else “as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office.”

It is also illegal for a government official to use “his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate.”

In a two-page memorandum released on Friday offering the first White House account of what happened, Robert F. Bauer, the White House counsel, did not parse the legalities, but simply said flatly that no laws were broken. He emphasized that the advisory board positions discussed with Mr. Sestak “would have been uncompensated.”

“There have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior administrations — both Democratic and Republican, and motivated by the same goals — discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office,” Mr. Bauer wrote. “Such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements.”

William Burck, a white-collar defense lawyer at Weil, Gotschal & Manges and the former deputy White House counsel under Mr. Bush, said it did not matter that the position being discussed with Mr. Sestak was unpaid because a prestigious presidential appointment was itself a thing of value and the law made no distinction between paid and unpaid.

“The legal question comes down to the White House’s intent and Sestak’s understanding of what the White House wanted from him in return,” he said. “If the position was offered as a quid pro quo to induce Sestak not to run in the Democratic primary, then it could be viewed essentially as a bribe. If the job was offered to him without conditions, then it would be harder to prove any law was violated.”

Joseph Gibson, former chief counsel to House Judiciary Committee Republicans and author of “Persuading Congress,” dismissed the defense that claims that everyone does it.

“Most parents do not accept that excuse from their children and the public should not accept it here,” he said. “A line may have been crossed. But we do not know all the facts right now, and we cannot fairly judge the situation until we do.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/us/30memo.html?src=mv

[George Whorewell]

The latest on this circus act is that allegedly Bill Clinton offered Sestak the job, but it was a "non paying" job. Bill Clinton isn't a member of the Obama administration and since there was no compensation offered to drop out of the race because it was a non paying position, no law was broken.

Anyone who believes this patently false and absurd explanation should have a brain transplant.

Why would anyone drop out of a race for Senate in exchange for what is essentially an unpaid internship?

[Colossus_500]

The Joe Sestak “Question” – Anatomy Of An Interview That Spread Like Wildfire
May 28th 2010 — Posted to News Flash
larrykane.com

So how did it happen? How did a straightforward question and blunt answer bring anxiety to the White House? I’ll tell you the story.For over three months now, friends and others have asked me to recount the events of February 18th of this year, when a single question from me to Congressman Joe Sestak unleashed a controversy that remains to this day. Is it a political issue? Is it illegal? I can’t answer those questions, but I can tell you how casually it all happened, and what basis I had for asking the question,

“Were you ever offered a job to get out of this race? (The contest against Arlen Specter).

Sestak didn’t flinch .

“Yes,” he answered.

“Was it Navy Secretary?”, I asked

“No comment.”

He proceeded to talk about staying in the race but added that “he was called many times” to pull out.

Later, I asked,  “So you were offered a job by someone in the White House?”

He said, “Yes.”

When the taping stopped, Joe Sestak looked surprised .

“You are the first person who ever asked me that question.”

And that was true. But why was I the first. There was buzz about this story since last summer. A few days before the February 18th taping of Voice Of Reason for The Comcast Network, I was advised by two reliable sources that  someone in or close to the White House had dangled a high level job offer to Sestak, to give a clear path to Senator Specter for the nomination. I thought it would be a good thing to pose the question to Sestak in the upcoming interview.

The Sestak interview was the second in this contest. I interviewed Specter a week before.

I prepared for the program with an outline of questions. But on that Thursday I was having a very hectic day. I was a little overwhelmed with work. I forgot to put the question in my outline. Suddenly, with 90 seconds left, I remembered!

The news business can have moments that are so unpredictable. I knew the questionwas a good one, based on some really good sources, but I was flabbergasted when Sestak said “Yes.” There was no hesitation. No delay. He just said, “Yes.”

As the Congressman left the building, there was an obvious dilemma. The show wouldn’t air till Sunday the 21st. The story could be big. I called Comcast executives. With their blessing, I broke the story with an audio interview on KYW Newsradio. But first there was work to do. I needed a White House response.

I called the White House Press Office. I played the interview for the individual who answered the phone. She said someone would call me back. A few minutes later, another individual called. She said the White House would call back with a reaction “shortly.” That was 3:45 in the afternoon.

The report aired all night without a White House response.

At 6:45 the next morning, 15 hours later, a Deputy Press Secretary called. She said, “You can say the White House says it’s not true.”

A similar call was placed to the Inquirer’s Tom Fitzgerald. Tom was in the studio during the show taping. He was following Sestak around, working on a feature story. He took the story to page one of the Friday Inquirer.

A few days ago, both of us were still wondering why it took the White House 15 hours to issue a simple denial.

The rest is history, peculiar history. The “job offer” story never became an issue in the campaign although some would suggest the story played well to Sestak’s argument that he was a real Democratic independent.

But on May 19th, a day after his upset victory over Specter, the February interview became an internet hit. Republcans, arguing that it may have been a crime to offer a job in return for a withdrawal from a political contest.  Democrats, only recently, called for the truth on this story. The President, saying nothing was improper, promised a White House statement “shortly.”

The entire episode, now broadcast and printed around the nation, is also a popular item on the web.

There are several things I want you to know. I’m surprised that Washington reporters never asked the question in the first place, I’m surprised that Sestak answered so quickly when I posed the question.

But most of all, I’m stunned that a rather simple question, turned into a political firestorm. You never really know where the pursuit of news will take you.

The story may not be over. Republicans will want more than just a White House counsel’s report.

But the beginning to this saga may be more interesting than the end.

One thing I do know is that, as the question was being asked, Joe Sestak never hesitated. In a split second, he just said, “yes.”