jump to last post 1-21 of 21 discussions (58 posts)

Sestak?

  1. Arthur Fontes profile image90
    Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago

    Well it looks like confessions are documented.  Someone is going to take the fall for the Sestak job offer.  Who do you think it will be?

    I think Rahm (deadfish) Emanuel will take the fall.

    David Axelrod?

    Bill Clinton?

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If what is being reported is true then there should be some serious repercussions from this.

      Isn't it always something when a slimebag like Spector who is a career politician and only out for himself is the spark for something like this.

      1. Arthur Fontes profile image90
        Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Through all of this though, Sestak has acted with honor and integrity.

        1. 68
          logic,commonsenseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Except now he won't cough up the details since the White House put the strong arm on him.

          1. Arthur Fontes profile image90
            Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Anyone who has to deal with a cartel of Chicago thugs needs to be wary.

            They may be found in the river with their arms and legs duct taped.  The authorities saying what a tragic case of suicide.

          2. SparklingJewel profile image66
            SparklingJewelposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            ...his family and first born, too, no doubt...sad

            1. Arthur Fontes profile image90
              Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I believe Mr. Sestak will answer every question put to him under oath.

    2. tony0724 profile image59
      tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I feel this Blagojevich trial may take half of Obamas cabinet down .And not to mention this guy from Colorado , do you sense a pattern here ?

      1. TinaMarieTad profile image82
        TinaMarieTadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Tony~ I agree with you that Blago is not going down without taking some major  players with him. It should be interesting how it plays out. I have a gut feeling that it is going to be Rahm Emanuel that takes the fall...I could be wrong, but he has his fingerprints on many shady deals lately including the Sestak offer.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image61
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If any wingnuts are holding your breath expecting resignations or impeachment you will be blue as an Avitar before it happens. There's a lot of stuff being produced by the rightie noise machine, but no substance.

          It will play out and we will see.  Just like the 'birther' theories.

          Of coure you will skip on to the next phony 'outrage' without admitting you fell for the bologna.

          1. TinaMarieTad profile image82
            TinaMarieTadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I have seen your not so friendly comments all over Hubs Doug.
            Your reputation precedes you. I was wondering how long it would
            be until our comments crossed paths..

            I am not a birther,  and never said anyone would be impeached.. I am a realist and don't go around brainwashed and keeping my head in the sand.  This administration is dirty and it is only matter of time before someone takes a fall..

            I am not the one who fell for the "phony"...lmbo..
            You did when you believed in and  voted for our current President.

            1. KFlippin profile image60
              KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Well said.

    3. KFlippin profile image60
      KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So very odd, a discussion about the Obama Administration's attempted bribe of political candidates is hijacked into a childish Bush did this, Cheney did that, and I want my cookies now Mommy rant, and please don't spank me cuz I didn't do anything wrong first.

      The Sestak and Romanoff bribes should be investigated, and both wingdings and wingnuts will likely find themselves quite satisfied with folks from both sides of the aisle being on the hot seat.  You either want to root out corruption and thievery in the running of our great country -- or you don't.  This shouldn't even be an issue of debate. 

      I think I'll jay walk repeatedly first chance I get, and when they arrest me I'll scream profiling -- American Taxpaying Sucker Profiling.  smile

      Just my thoughts.

  2. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago

    The Administration is claiming they've done nothing wrong.
    Supposedly they used Clinton to make the offer to Sestak...

    But what they'll do is claim that they offered "nothing of value" since supposedly Sestak wasn't offered money.
    You know, the same thing Roland Burris wasn't offered but got Obama's Senate seat anyway.

    1. Arthur Fontes profile image90
      Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The Law was broken.  Even if he was offered a piece of gum not to run.  It is a crime.

    2. Wealthmadehealthy profile image60
      Wealthmadehealthyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Brenda, Hi...     Keeping in mind that only Barack Hussein Obama has the authority to appoint an individual to his own cabinet, the only question that remains is; what did Obama know and when did he know it.

      Clinton could not have done this.  We are undergoing more deception and finger pointing. 

      Have a blessed day!!

  3. Wealthmadehealthy profile image60
    Wealthmadehealthyposted 6 years ago

    If BHO is found to have anything to do with this it is a felony, impeachable offense.   

    And I say good riddance.  We need a Christian based government which stands up for our "God given rights"  not Islam and Muslims. 

    Thats' my reply and I'm stickin to it. 

    Good question.

  4. Doug Hughes profile image61
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    I am going to rain on the rightie parade with a dose of reality. The quote is Barbara O'Brien from the Mahablog.com - 

    "The charge is that the White House tried to bribe Joe Sestak into dropping out of the Senate primary race against Arlen Specter. The reality appears to be that former President Bill Clinton was sent to ask Sestak to consider not entering the race, not to drop out of it. And perhaps Sestak would have been appointed to an unpaid advisory position. No money was offered, in other words."

    There is nothing here that hasn't been done before by any administration of either party, except that in this case they were scrupulously honest about making the proposal BEFORE Sestak announced and they did NOT offer Sestak money or a job that involved pay.

    You guys don't like it when I suggest racism - but why else are you talking impeachment when there has been NOTHING done that's illegal or wrong or politically unsusual. Why else would you be so desparate to trump up false and ridiculous charges?

  5. Arthur Fontes profile image90
    Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago

    If the whole matter is no big deal, why didn't the administration tell the TRUTH months ago?

    1. Doug Hughes profile image61
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Arthur - your question presumes an obligation on the part of the President to jump through any right-wing hoop that's held up - at the moment it's held up. Failure to do so is 'proof' of guilt.

      The timing as I se it - BEFORE Sestek announced - he was asked not to run and offered a job with NO pay, if he would not run. He declined.  And throughout the election, the administration was silent about the false accusations - until AFTER the election was over. That's what the timing of events shows.

  6. Doug Hughes profile image61
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    With all they hysterical screams of impeachment - I have yet ot hear WHAT law(s) were broken.

  7. Ohma profile image79
    Ohmaposted 6 years ago

    bribery come to mind.

  8. Arthur Fontes profile image90
    Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago

    How's that!


    Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political
    activity


          Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment,    position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit,    provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of    Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such    benefit, to any person 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, or in connection with any    primary election or political convention or caucus held to select    candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this    title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

  9. Arthur Fontes profile image90
    Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago

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


    Larry Kane

  10. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago

    I think you nailed it Arthur.
    Now will the powers-that-be have the guts to nail the offender/s?....

    1. Arthur Fontes profile image90
      Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It seems as though the administration does consider itself outside and above judicial review.  Eventually the people will rise against such outright elitism.

  11. Arthur Fontes profile image90
    Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago

    Blago's trial starts tomorrow Quid Pro Quo....


    Another case of a possible violation of the law in Colorado.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/0 … 99368.html

    Is there still a United States Justice System?

    1. KFlippin profile image60
      KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Not in the true sense of its conception and enforcement for a couple of years now...........

  12. leeberttea profile image59
    leebertteaposted 6 years ago

    It seems there is a pattern in these cases. Now I can't imagine how anyone can believe the statement from the WH is true. It took them months to come up with this. Before it was released Clinton had lunch at the WH, likely to get their stories straight. Sestak said he was offered a high level job, and the unpaid board position that he would not have been by law qualified for, (the law signed by Bill Clinton) does not amount to a job and certainly wouldn't reach the standard of high level. So, someone is lying and my bet is, it's the WH and Obama, who as a result of this cover up may well be impeached, and rightly so.

  13. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    Its not only Sestak, but also Romanoff of CO., and the Gov. of NY, Patterson.

    Shit is in the wind... get the fans out.

    And the paper trail is very good from Romanoff from what I understand so far... they sent him emails stating the jobs. That is some email... I can't wait to see it.

  14. Arthur Fontes profile image90
    Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago

    http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u68/bamahead/obama-rip-constitution.jpg

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You are 10 years too late.

  15. Doug Hughes profile image61
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    I suspect we're dealing with the same wingnuts here who were totally certain that President Obama was born in Kenya and were going to force the issue into court.

    How did that work out and how much money did you send in to 'Iammateabaggingfool.com'?

    1. leeberttea profile image59
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's an awfully defensive post. Do you work for this administration or are you so naive as to believe no laws were broken in this admitted offer by the WH to Sestak?

      1. Arthur Fontes profile image90
        Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol  lol  lol

      2. Doug Hughes profile image61
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I have read over the law Arthur posted and it was not broken.

        "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, or in connection with any    primary election or political convention or caucus held to select    candidates for any political office,


        The offer of a job that includes no pay is hardly a 'reward'.

        was the offer for political activity ?

        No, political inactivity is not poitical activity.

        was the offer for support of any candidate?

        No.

        opposition to any candiate?

        No.

        Ypu want to prosecute for what you wish was in tha law - not for what the law actually says.

        1. KFlippin profile image60
          KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          ???   You've checked it all out, and you've figured it all out, and your interpretation of the law is satisfactory?  Okay then, let us bow......but not so fast.

          Your verbiage is entirely directed toward believing that only a non-paying crap job was offered to Sestak.  Yeah, right, we all believe that. A real pineapple to make him give up his potential watermelon as a Senator - Not.

          1. tony0724 profile image59
            tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Oh come on man every one would take a crap post to drop out of an election right ?

        2. Arthur Fontes profile image90
          Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this



          The law reads pretty easily. Someone could offer to mow a candidates lawn to not oppose another in a primary election for any office and violate the law.

          Spin will not work.

          1. KFlippin profile image60
            KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Well and simply said.

            1. Arthur Fontes profile image90
              Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you

        3. leeberttea profile image59
          leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          First you have to believe that the "offer" was for a non paid position and that was the one and only offer. Frankly I don't believe that since Sestak said it was for a high profile job. Usually jobs are paid positions and a board position which Sestak was legally not qualified for by law, a law that Bill Clinton himself signed, makes this story even less believable.

          Would Clinton offer a job to Sestak for a position the he surely must have known Sestak was not legally able to perform?

          Not running for a position does not constitute inactivity, that's just your spin on it. Agreeing not to run is indeed political activity, and constitutes support for the candidate that he would have been running against.

          Couple all this with the Blago affair and the Colorado race where emails of the offer do exist and what we have here is evidence of a pattern of behaviour which also adds weight to the allegations that federal laws were violated. Worse is the cover up of the whole affair. Now you have possible perjury charges. Will these politicians ever learn?

    2. tony0724 profile image59
      tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Actually Doug the original birther flap started with an Attorney who supported Hillary for Prez.

  16. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    So, what about illegal wire-tapping, illegal torture, illegally invading a foreign nation? Doesn't rise to the test of this?
    Unless you press for prosecution of the Bush administration, you have no moral or legal ground to stand on.

    1. Arthur Fontes profile image90
      Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well if you are saying that our current Attorney General is an incompetent buffoon?  I agree.  If there is evidence of crimes he has an obligation to seek prosecution.

      Bring it on, I have no problem with investigating the Bush administration.

    2. leeberttea profile image59
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting take. So what you're saying is if one person breaks a law and isn't prosecuted then everyone can break any law and law no longer matters. Okay, I like that, too bad that isn't the law of the land!

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And you're sayin that it's ok for some people to break laws, just let them slide....eh, it's old news.

        I'm saying if laws matter, than they matter to all, not just the politico's you don't like!

        And geez-looeeez--you get all riled up at this, when we had Darth Vader for 8 years running terror???

        1. leeberttea profile image59
          leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't get riled up about it. There isn't anything I can do about it. I have no money and no power, my voice is a meaningless whisper in a cacophony crowd of corrupt chorus singers, I'm just sayin...

        2. Arthur Fontes profile image90
          Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this



          Who would you suggest should investigate the Bush Administration?  Do you know who heads the Justice Department?  Shouldn't you be angry at the incompetence of the Attorney General?

          You don't think Batman is going to show up to enforce justice?

  17. Fishing Videos profile image59
    Fishing Videosposted 6 years ago

    Who is going to take the fall? It's easy to answer "George Bush"

    They will find some way to blame him for it as they have for everything else that went wrong.

    1. KFlippin profile image60
      KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There you go, you are probably right, I'll keep my ear out for just that, will be interesting to see if the mainstream media gets a glimmer of a reason to do just that,blame even this on Bush,.....oh wait, they are already trying to blame it on Cheney! or did I imagine that? smile Yeah, I must have, I think it's the oil spill disaster that they're trying to blame on Cheney.

      But, they'll find a reason, an absurd and illogical Juan Williams lame example to point to Bush as the precedent setter.  Did you now Juan Williams likens Sestak's bribe as equivalent to jaywalking and the occasional person getting caught?

    2. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      He's got enough of his own actions to answer for...he doesn't need Obama's!!

  18. N. Ramius profile image82
    N. Ramiusposted 6 years ago

    Whether any laws were broken, this shows Obama and the White House are hypocrites. Where was the transparency and change Obama made such a huge focus of his election campaign. Obama is no different than any other politician which is what he campaigned against.

  19. 0
    chasingcarsposted 6 years ago

    Come on, righties.  Bush has just stated that he, indeed, approved torture and he would do it again.  Note that people who tortured in the past wars were sentenced to long jail time or death.  But let's just overlook that little item in favor of finding something new to jump on Obama about.  We progressives would like an answer as to why the DNC is holding up the lame, crooked, and sleazy conservoDems; we are contributing to taking them down like we did Specter, and, we hope, Blanche Lincoln, but I place the blame on the DNC and not the administration.  The DNC has lost step with its current constituency.

    1. leeberttea profile image59
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You say Bush approved torture, but the fact is the justice department ruled that the waterboarding technique that was used did not constitute torture under international law. Now I realize you want to blame Bush and Cheney for this oil spill and the breakup of Gore's marriage but there is no way to blame this illegal act of paygo Chicago politics on anyone other than Obama and his cronies.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You CAN blame this oil spill on Cheney....he put oil-loving, deregulating cronies at the MMS.

        His whole philosophy was "What's good for business is all that counts"!!

        Gore's Marriage........HUH?

  20. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Right cars!

    Pssssst--Hey--Look Over Here!! Look at what Obama is doing!!



    just ignore those snakes slithering out of the country....
    "Paraguay, Dubai here we come...right back where we started from" (sung to the tune of California here I come)

    Why do i always think of Bugs Bunny at times like these??

  21. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Ahahaha...how about Mighty Mouse; "Here I come to save the day!!"

    Yes, I AM pissed at Holder and Obama for letting the past administration slide....especially given the nature of the crimes.

    Marqi De Sade would be proud of them...

    But there is a blogger at Huffpo (mind freeze), who says that torture is STILL going on at Baghram Air Force Base.

    Why are we sadistic? Where does this come from??

    And it will never end if we don't acknowledge and DO something....
    But you know, I heard that Bush just got a myspace account......he has 30,000 fans.

    ..........sigh...........it's the Cult of Personality.

 
working