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.
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.
Through all of this though, Sestak has acted with honor and integrity.
Except now he won't cough up the details since the White House put the strong arm on him.
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.
...his family and first born, too, no doubt...
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just my thoughts.
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.
The Law was broken. Even if he was offered a piece of gum not to run. It is a crime.
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!!
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.
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?
If the whole matter is no big deal, why didn't the administration tell the TRUTH months ago?
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.
With all they hysterical screams of impeachment - I have yet ot hear WHAT law(s) were broken.
Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political
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.
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
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.”
I think you nailed it Arthur.
Now will the powers-that-be have the guts to nail the offender/s?....
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?
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.
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.
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'?
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?
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?
opposition to any candiate?
Ypu want to prosecute for what you wish was in tha law - not for what the law actually says.
??? 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.
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.
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?
Actually Doug the original birther flap started with an Attorney who supported Hillary for Prez.
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.
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.
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!
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???
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...
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?
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.
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? 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?
He's got enough of his own actions to answer for...he doesn't need Obama's!!
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.
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.
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.
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??
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.
by Mike Russo 2 years ago
I just watched two episodes of Race for the White House on CNN. The first one was about Dukakis and Bush and the second one was about Bush and Clinton. I learned that we will vote for whoever has the best campaign staff that can create risk and doubt for the other side. Let's look...
by Philip Cooper 3 years ago
Who believes the Republicans will win the White House in two years time?
by Ralph Schwartz 18 months ago
Do you believe Trump was wiretapped before the election?The Trump administration has spoken out loudly that Obama had him wiretapped. There has been a wierd non-denial from an Obama spokesman. Thoughts ?
by Susan Reid 5 years ago
By now we all have heard of Mitt Romney's latest comments. “The president’s campaign, if you will, focused on giving targeted groups a big gift,” Romney said during that call to donors on Wednesday.Now I'm reading another excerpt from that same call. Romney claims Bill Clinton called him...
by Mike Russo 2 years ago
In a criminal court of law, the presumption of innocence prevails until the defendant is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil court of law, the defendant is innocent until the preponderance of evidence proves otherwise. In Hillary Clinton's myriad of...
by Susan Reid 5 years ago
Is Benghazigate/IRSgate/APCIAgate equal to, worse than, or not as damaging to Obama's presidency than previous presidential scandals? A nice little history lesson here.And a very good summation on why these investigations are so all-consuming, but not to most Americans. Enjoy! Comment if you feel...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|